vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) (12/14/86)
In article <358@pttesac.UUCP> vanam@pttesac.UUCP (Marnix van Ammers) writes: >Only image.c was missing in the original postings on my machine. >I've got all the files now and I've fixed all the lines which were >split at column 80. I still had 2 unresolved references (or whatever >they're called): isdigit() and ActivateGadget(). I called John and >he said that I needed to compile on WB 1.2 . I can't see what the >difference is. They're still going to be unresolved references >aren't they? I mean I'm still using the same linking libraries. I think I understand the problem. John meant that I should compile using the newer Manx libraries which they'll be putting out for WB 1.2 . Well, as I've said before, I haven't heard a peep out of Manx since I paid my $500 for their commercial compiler package. I sent in my registration card the very next day. So last week I called the tech support number listed in their documentation. I called during normal business hours (around 09:00 on 3 different weekdays -- no answer. I called the BBS number listed in their documentation. Same thing, no answer. Yes, I could write the president of the company as suggested by another poster, but I'll bet this bad publicity on the net is going to hurt them a lot more. Manx, I am pissed !!!!!!!!!! At the very least you could spread the word (through the net) as to how, when, and where, we're going to get our updates. Any lawyers out there? Can I sue? -- Marnix (ain't unix!) A. van\ Ammers Work: (415) 545-8334 Home: (707) 644-9781 CEO: MAVANAMMERS:UNIX UUCP: {ihnp4|ptsfa}!pttesac!vanam CIS: 70027,70