before I do make that move, I'd like to hear what others that have used
it have to say about Mach-II. I am just getting into CFCs, but if the
reasons/experiences are compelling enough, I would consider the move
directly to Mach-II instead of F4.
--Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Michael Haggerty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CF-Talk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 13:36:27 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: OT: Mach-II
> No, it's there. I've received about a dozen replies off list.
>
> It would be nice if people would talk about things publicly. I don't
> think the fear of other people's comments is really legitimate.
>
> But I am grateful to those who replied to me.
>
> M
>
> Mike Kear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The original question was "does your organisation use Mach-II?" and so
> far
> lots of people have said "we don't" or "we made our own" but no one's
> said
> "yes we do".
>
> Does anyone actually use it? Has Mach-II really missed the mark
> then?
>
> Cheers
>
> Mike Kear
>
> Windsor, NSW, Australia
>
> AFP Webworks
>
> http://afpwebworks.com
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings]
