Hi, Paul.

PE> PE> Hey guys, I know I warned you about PQWK270, but SOMEONE has to try it
PE> FM> out.
PE> PE> The guy who was going to use it under Unix, didn't, so he's no good.
PE> BFN.
PE> PE> Paul.

PE> FM> OK, I grabbed it when you mentioned it but never installed it. I'll do
PE> FM> it when I've finished reading this mail. AAMOI how do *you* know that
PE> FM> no-one is using it?

PE> If you were using it, it would come up with a PQWK 2.7 in the PID control
PE> line in your messages (like this message you sent!).

Ah, I see. What I *don't* see is the control lines. :-)

PE> FM> [later] OK, done that - let's see how it goes. BTW, your README should
PE> FM> say what the difference in the versions ending in
"p" is - I can't

PE> Yes, it should really.  Although all those "p" versions
are basically
PE> "undocumented files".

Very confusing.

PE> FM> remember, is it OS/2?

PE> Yes, and OS/2 users are used to seeing the "p" for
"protected", so it's sor
PE> of a self-documenting filename.  BFN.  Paul.

ROFL! Self-documenting - if you know what it means!

PE> P.S. I use info-zip, not pkzip.

Presumably this is re the other discussion. It's still likely that it
will compress better with more memory "available". See the example in my
message to Bob. Now what "available" means, who knows. Obviously the
amount of conventional memory it can grab at least, but it will probably
also be able to use EMS &/or XMS, and how much of this is available
could vary dynamically in a Windows or OS/2 environment, depending on
what else is or has been running.

Regards, fIM.

 * * Depending on the question, this is the answer!
@EOT:

---