TU> Have you seen the "review" in Windows Developer's Journal?  As I read
TU> it, I honestly had to wonder if he was talking about the same book as
TU> the one I had read.  Then, I went and checked some of his claims.  
TU> Forthe most part, I found them to be more misrepresentations, than 
TU> factual.I remember one, where he was "technically" correct, but only 
TU> if youignored other statements in the same section.  I didn't check 
TU> out thealleged program errors, but these seem to be a common problem 
TU> in recentcomputer books.  I have a suspicion that such might arise 
TU> from peoplebeing forced to use beta versions of the compiler they are 
TU> writingabout, or something similar.
Yes, I did read it. All I can say is, he found that we aren't perfect...Yes, 
we did work from beta code which changed several times and if he had 
downloaded the errata doc and source code, most of the technical issues and 
misprints would have been handled...but then we are talking about a 
publication that admits they give alot of bad reviews and this particular 
review starts off by complaining about the author's dedications...I think 
that speaks for itself. 
BTW, we have received alot of email from readers before the review was 
published and most seem happy with the book so we are taking it with the 
grain of salt that it is. :) 
Steve
--- FreeMail 1.07b
(1:203/21)
---------------