Hi Phil: The question that started my initial post is still begging and perhaps you could give me an explanation. A year ago, I wrote a lengthy response to a post on the HL list that I had spent half an hour composing . I needed to check something, so I minimized the post. When I tried to return to maximize it, the message was gone, chucked out the invisible doggy door into the ether. I was not happy, to put it mildly. I shared my disgust with the readers of the forum, since what I was trying to do is a basic Windows function. Yesterday, I was responding to a message from the HL site, and minimized my reply to go check for something online. The same thing happened when I came back. Here is where the rubber meets the road for me: The ability to minimize and maximize a Window is a core function of Windows, one of the most commonly used functions of Windows. I believe it has been around since what, Windows 3.0 in 1990? Suffice it to say 20 plus years. MS Windows is far and away the most commonly used operating system, so presumably software developers are going to write programs that in particular use the most common Windows functions and are able to do so in a trouble free manner. Indeed, this aspect of Windows is common to other GUI's. One would have thought that HL would have addressed any problems that their Forum software might have with Windows (insert my example of bug here), since it is a problem that virtually anyone who uses the program will encounter at one time or another. And it will happen to you a lot, unless you stop minimizing windows so as to not lose your message. But then not minimizing the window defeats the purpose of having that option in the first place. PTG is far from the only group to use this their Forum software, so everybody else has this problem and it has been around for years, however long ago HL or their subcontractors developed this software. So a year has passed since my first experience, and it has been repeated. Wouldn't the most obvious conclusion for someone like myself to draw be that they either don't know how to fix the problem and/or they don't care enough to bother? I have no reason to believe that it will be fixed a year from now. Want to bet me 10 bucks on that? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this company is not working in good faith with PTG when issues like this are ignored. Why has it not been fixed? Has anyone on our end approach HL about this problem? (It is almost inconceivable, though, that HL would not know about it). Will Truitt From: pianotech-bounces at ptg.org [mailto:pianotech-bounces at ptg.org] On Behalf Of Phil Bondi Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 1:05 PM To: pianotech at ptg.org Subject: Re: [pianotech] pianotech Digest, Vol 43, Issue 124 <...and Alec n' Company don't muck-about here, other than our esteemed Moy.> Dave, you must have forgotten that I stood in front of Council last year and volunteered to monitor any needs this list has. That hasn't changed. Fortunately the needs have been few. I have help with _your_ esteemed Moy if things get too techy for me, and Alec has been known to OK a held attachment or 2. still mucking, -Phil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://www.moypiano.com/ptg/pianotech.php/attachments/20120522/66fd4eeb/attachment-0001.htm>
This PTG archive page provided courtesy of Moy Piano Service, LLC