Hi, Bill.

BG> BG> I read too many bad things about 1.93a

BG> FM> I never heard anything bad about 1.93a, and tested it
BG> FM> extensively before relying on it. The 2.04n BG> It's been a couple of years now, but there certainly were
BG> BG> some difficulties with 1.93a, none of which I can recall now.
BG> BG> Perhaps the 2.04g docs make mention of these bugs (I haven't
BG> BG> checked) ??

BG> FM> At the risk of being repetitive,

BG> Which you are...  |-)

... maybe. :-)

BG> FM> I *never* heard of any 1.93 bugs.

BG> I promise you that they do exist, although if you haven't been bitten yet,
BG> there seems to be very little point in changing now.

I'll go to 2.04g some day, it does give slightly better compression on
some files and there can't be any 3rd parties around now who don't have
it.

BG> FM> And no, I haven't checked the nurses. :-)

BG> I find that extremely difficult to believe.  Pull the other one.  |-)

Ah, yes, I remember now. It was in Melbourne, a nurses ball. But I only
went home with one...

Regards, FIM.

 * * Either my watch has stopped or I'm in deep trouble.
@EOT:

---