Mike Millen wrote: > > > At the very least, could you please identify for us which files to > look for if we have to sift them ourselves. Is it merely any file > newer than the previous version, or is it a bit cleverer than that? No cleverness involved. I think someday I should write some .bat to compare file dates and collect the new ones automatically, but this time I did it manually by sorting on date in each directory. The update includes all 07/07/2000 files plus the new Miniterm which must have been done for 1.63 as it was June something. And I don't have a list - although one could be obtained with pkunzip, it's a bit of a hassle for me to run anything while using NS in windows. A hassle for a DOS user anyway. <G> - Clarence Verge -- - Help stamp out FATWARE. As a start visit: http://home.arachne.cz/ --
- 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Clarence Verge
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Michael Polak
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Gregor J Jones
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Michael Polak
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Gregor J Jones
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Michael Polak
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Clarence Verge
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Michael Polak
- 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Mike Millen
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Clarence Verge
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Pete
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Thomas Mueller
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Eko Priono
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Eric S. Emerson
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! L.D. Best
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Glenn McCorkle
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Samuel W. Heywood
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Pete
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Bernie
- Re: 164 GOOD - not perfect ! Bob Buckland ?:-\)
