| From: | Jw |
| Date: | 31 Jan 2000 at 20:51:35 |
| Subject: | RE: P F S (was OS 3.5 FAQ v1.0) |
From: "Jw" <John@wasilewski.co.uk>
On 30-Jan-00, James Hays wrote:
> I've been using PFS since version 2... . . .
I have PFS2.x
I /did/ once have a disaster, when I lost most of my stuff. I can't exactly
remember what happened. So I know that even this has to be used carefully.
In general, though, I have found PFS2.x quite stable and robust. AaMoF, I
found AFS stable and robust as well. PFS2 is the improvement over PFS, and
PFS came after AFS. So PFS2 ought to be not half bad. And indeed, it seems
that it is.
Under OS3.5BB1, I have not heard a squimmer of a murmur from PFS2. Yet I've
seen one or two slighly worrisome e-mails posted about PFS3.x (forgive me
for not remembering the details).
Taking all the above into account, I thought, and still think, the u/g price
a bit steep for 3.x, so I am still on 2.x.
The *big* question:
AM I MAKING A MISTAKE?
John Wasilewski
--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds. Get rates as low as 0.0 percent
Intro APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW.
<a href=" http://clickme.onelist.com/ad/NextcardCreativeCL ">Click Here</a>
------------------------------------------------------------------------