On 1/18/01 8:50 PM, "Christian M. M. Brady" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/18/01 9:44 PM, "Dénes Bogsányi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In which case where do the different number of items quoted originate. I
>> have also seen this. In fact in the same post someone was quoted saying that
>> limit on the number is as 7 and someone else was quoted as saying that limit
>> on the number is 10. This, to say the least is misleading in the extreme.
>> It may be that the limit is hardware dependent but then that dependency
>> should be indicated.
>
> No, it is not hardware dependant. I believe the correct number is 10. Check
> to see who is posting the note. Jud Spencer, Omar Shahine, David Cortright,
> and Dan Crevier are all on the development team.
>
> Cb
> cbrady @ tulane.edu
Actually it was Steve Friesen, also on the development team, who wrote "no
more than 7", which rather startled me. I wrote him asking for a
confirmation, saying that I too thought that the number it could not be more
than was 9 (i.e. 10 is the bad number), but he hasn't replied yet.
Awaiting the true answer with interest�
--
Paul Berkowitz
--
To unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To search the archives:
<http://www.mail-archive.com/entourage-talk%40lists.boingo.com/>
