This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_04A7_01C041DA.025D0360 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit High everyone, since we are on the topic of having problems with messages etc I thought I'd report my problem I've been having for quite a while. When I receive a message from certain people on the list it can take about 1 minute to open the message once I've downloaded it, if I highlite the message and hit delete, that to takes about 1 minute. It doesn't do it for everyone and it doesn't do it for the same person every time BUT if it occurs on a message it will also happen to every reply to that message. For example the attached message from Dragan Kujovic basically causes my computer to stop for 1 minute if i try to read or even preview it, if anyone replies to this message the same will happen to their message but Dragan Kujovic may send another message in a week and it will be fine. Does anyone know what could be causing this? Regards Stuart ------=_NextPart_000_04A7_01C041DA.025D0360 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="PICBASIC-L RE Picbasic Pro wish list (17Cxxx, 18Cxxx ...).eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="PICBASIC-L RE Picbasic Pro wish list (17Cxxx, 18Cxxx ...).eml" Received: by ar.ar.com.au (mbox pig) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Oct 29 18:38:10 2000) X-From_: owner-picbasic-l@ns.qunos.net Sun Oct 29 06:33:02 2000 Return-Path: Received: from ns.qunos.net (qunos.net [212.240.177.200]) by ar.ar.com.au (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e9SJWwh06555 for ; Sun, 29 Oct 2000 06:32:59 +1100 Received: (from majordom@localhost) by ns.qunos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id UAA17698 for picbasic-l-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:28:06 +0100 (BST) X-Authentication-Warning: ns.qunos.net: majordom set sender to owner-picbasic-l@ns.qunos.net using -f Received: from smtp.EUnet.yu (smtp.EUnet.yu [194.247.192.50]) by ns.qunos.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA17690 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 20:27:50 +0100 (BST) Received: from master (P-3.31.EUnet.yu [213.240.3.31]) by smtp.EUnet.yu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id VAA18645 for ; Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:20:05 +0200 (MET DST) From: "Dragan Kujovic" To: "PIC List" Subject: PICBASIC-L RE: Picbasic Pro wish list (17Cxxx, 18Cxxx ...) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 21:20:09 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 1 (Highest) X-MSMail-Priority: High X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: High X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: owner-picbasic-l@ns.qunos.net Precedence: first-class Reply-To: picbasic-l@qunos.net Respectable colleagues, in the first place, I wish that EVERY existing PBP command work OK with every type of PIC. To reach that goal, every command must be tested in the real world with each type of a PIC. It takes few hours per one type of a PIC for a test, and a XXX hours for a debug process if some kind of bug exist. I write a very complex code in Visual C++ and Visual Basic. If you write a simple code, everything is nice. But code with many different objects, methods and properties, and more then 10 thousands lines of code can easily produce system error that developer didn't notice. You may be angry in that moment, but only way to manage that situation is to find out how to write code in some other way to avoid existing bug and to report that to the language tool developer. In the company MICROSOFT, under the MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network and Knowledge Base), every suggestion, no matter how stupid or futuristic is, must be processed and sent to some of development departments. True is that in the 95% of cases you will get an automatic answer, but your suggestion is processed by somebody and in the case that question or suggestion has any sense it will be placed on the list for future improvements. Result of this is that future service pack will not have known bugs. Of course it is a giant company, but improvement policy must be the same for big and small companies. When I purchase new type of a PIC I test all commands of PBP, and all registers no matter, do I need it or not in that moment. PBP is very nice and unique tool, but developers of PBP must pay attention to our problems with PBP implementation on different types of PICs. Good side of a PBP is that you can jump over a bug with assembly code insertion, but for many of PBP users it is a tough gateway. By the way, my former 3 mails to Jeff from ME Labs, haven't produced any answer. Either my questions are boring to read or ... With best regards, Dragan Kujovic ------------------------- PIC BASIC Mailing List Crownhill Associates Ltd www.crownhill.co.uk www.picbasic.co.uk ------------------------- To remove yourself from this list, please send email to majordomo@qunos.net with this text in its body: unsubscribe picbasic-l ------=_NextPart_000_04A7_01C041DA.025D0360-- -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: "[PIC]:","[SX]:","[AVR]:" =uP ONLY! "[EE]:","[OT]:" =Other "[BUY]:","[AD]:" =Ads