BJ> Expecting Scott to upgrade 2.02 to Y2K just isn't realistic, since 
 BJ> he worked very hard on its successor, 3.0x, which is now the 
 BJ> current version.  Would you also expect him to fix Max 1.0x too?

 LH>     No, but given the amount of difference, I think a patch would
 LH> not be too much to ask for the people who want to stay with
 LH> software they are comfortable with.

 BJ> Not a realistic expectation, I'm afraid.  Move on.  :-)

 BJ> What "amount of difference"?  There are new features in Max 3.01, 
 BJ> but their implementation is *optional*.  The only real difference 
 BJ> from a user's viewpoint is the removal of the "hotflash" menu 
 BJ> option.  All the other new stuff is there if you want to use it, 
 BJ> but otherwise not an issue.

 LH>     I'm only concerned with the date feature and making sure it
 LH> will handle  the y2k.  That does not seem like too much to ask for
 LH> a patch for that. 

 BJ> Again, asking for an upgrade to a superceded software version is
 BJ> unrealistic. 

Maybe she should try asking Microsoft for an update to Windows 3.1, or IBM
for a patch to make PC-DOS 3.3 Y2K compatible.

-Ben Hamilton, 
 Internet email: ben.hamilton{at}compconn.net
 http://www.compconn.net   ftp://ftp.compconn.net
 Telnet/Vmodem: bbs.compconn.net (209.51.4.45)

--- timEd/2 1.10.y2k+