On 06-May-99, Chris Wiles wrote:
> Well, it is the age-old argument of 'reliability'. Ok, a few on this list
> (you must note it is a FEW on this list) have problems, but many have no
> problems at all.
I tend to believe that to be true, but another factor - to me - "could be",
that not all STFax users make use of the program in such an intensive way
to realize the full extent of "possible hidden" program errors.
That's maybe also a reason why only a FEW, who are motivated or encouraged
enough to face and deal with the problem without giving up at first chance,
really report their problems.
> Me, Neil Bothwick and Ben Vost - three high-profile STFax users - have
very
> few problems, if any, with the core features of STFax.
Wish I only could participate also in that ... ;-)
> So, therefore to us it *is* very reliable.
> Sorry, but those are my feelings.
Accepted either of course!
(.. once again: I don't blame, accuse or whatever anybody, I just wonder
about a certain phenomenon, which's cause and solution I would be
interested in)
--
Heinz S�SS
------------------------------------------
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ: 18480049
--
STFax Mailing List - http://www.active-net.co.uk/products/stfax
ML-Help: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "HELP" or "LONGINDEX"
ML-Unsubscribe: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "DEL" in mail body
