| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | BW vs. QWK |
-=> On 07-09-10 07:49, Sean Dennis <=-
-=> spoke to Stephen Haffly about menus <=-
SD> Anyhow, BW packets are better IMNSHO since they're more
SD> easily archivable (?) and dealt with than QWK packets.
I'm curious as to why you say that. I have been using Bluewave with QWK
packets for 15+ years, and have had no trouble at all with archival. In
addition, I have collected a variety of routines that deal only with QWK
packets. Although I have tried native BW packets in the past, I never
saw enough to make me want to give up the ability to use those programs.
Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
(1:261/1466)
... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:44:27, 09 Jul 2010
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30
--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)SEEN-BY: 3/0 633/267 640/954 712/0 313 550 620 848 @PATH: 261/1466 123/500 261/38 712/848 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.