In a message dated 12/04/2007 22:01:04 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
agree - perhaps Quanta would be better to say, purchase 5 licences and
then offer to give them away - that would probably be more than enough to
meet demand.
Have to say I dont agree, buying the
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:32:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/04/2007 22:01:04 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
agree - perhaps Quanta would be better to say, purchase 5 licences and
then offer to give them away - that would probably be more than enough
- Original Message -
From: Rich Mellor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [ql-users] QMAC
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007 10:32:15 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/04/2007 22:01:04 GMT Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Gilpin writes:
That's just about it in words of very few syllables, Rich.
How many of you want a FREE copy? If I can convince committee that there is
a need for this, it's more likely to happen!! If there are only a couple of
copies wanted, it would be cheaper for Quanta to pay the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], George
Gwilt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Also it is not the function of a
new
O/S to be backwardly compatible.
I would be horrified if I thought that any of my programs would stop
working on new versions of SMSQE. To that extent I would hope for
example that any of
