RE: WAS 7.0 PTF question -- MIDRANGE-L

Good News Everybody!

The new search engine is LIVE!

Please report any problems to david (at) midrange.com.

Subject: RE: WAS 7.0 PTF question
From: rob@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 11:58:41 -0400
List-archive: <http://archive.midrange.com/midrange-l>
List-help: <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=help>
List-id: Midrange Systems Technical Discussion <midrange-l.midrange.com>
List-post: <mailto:midrange-l@midrange.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.midrange.com/mailman/listinfo/midrange-l>, <mailto:midrange-l-request@midrange.com?subject=unsubscribe>

I'm betting not. WAS ptf's are huge. They probably don't want to put
them on a cume. That, and what percent of i's run WAS?

Any reason they can't just go to 23?

Rob Berendt

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Follow-Ups:

RE: WAS 7.0 PTF question , Paul Nelson

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2026 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].

Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.