Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+BUGS\s+WL\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+BUGS\s+WL\s*$/: 4 ]

Total 4 documents matching your query.

1. [WriteLog] BUGS WL (score: 1): Author: py5eg@inepar.com.br (PY5EG); Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 22:47:55 -0200; Hi Folks: Thanks also for the good tips on the subject WL BUGS. 73 Oms PY5EG; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-11/msg00033.html (6,100 bytes)
2. [WriteLog] BUGS WL (score: 1): Author: py5eg@inepar.com.br (PY5EG); Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2002 22:07:05 -0200; Hi Folks: Even considering that WL is the best software for contest logs, there are some problems that should be fixed. I´m using WL for about two years now and specially for M/M M/S , and M/T; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-10/msg00440.html (7,368 bytes)
3. [WriteLog] BUGS WL (score: 1): Author: ik2ncj@galactica.it (Luca IK2NCJ); Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:22:54 +0100; I agree with you dear Oms especially in two facts: First: WL is the best software for logging in contest Second: it is very "heavy" for running properly in every machine. The second point is the one; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-10/msg00459.html (9,296 bytes)
4. [WriteLog] BUGS WL (score: 1): Author: Georgek5kg@aol.com (Georgek5kg@aol.com); Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 12:32:29 EST; Luca, I routinely run WriteLog on a 233 mhz laptop with 152 megs of RAM from J75KG with no noticable slow down in performance. I run super check partial, and 'am connected via an Ethernet connection; /archives//html/WriteLog/2002-10/msg00467.html (7,443 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 4
Page: [1]