In article >, Top Spin > wrote:
>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 12:19:01 GMT, (Phred)
>wrote:
>
>>In article >, Top Spin
> > wrote:
>>>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 14:21:59 GMT, " <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We're using Living Cookbook and love it.
>>>
>>>I downloaded the demo yesterday. Very nice interface. Far superior to
>>>MasterCook.
>>
>>What limitations apply to the demo? It says "fully functional" at
>><http://www.livingcookbook.com/features/free-software-downloads.htm>
>>but I assume there is some sort of "gotcha" such as can't save more
>>than five recipes, or only works for 30 days? (As a habitual
>>procrastinator, I have no use for time limitations in trialware. 8-)
>
>So, you want a free version of the commercial product with no
>restrictions and unlimited use, right? If they did that, I bet an
Go frig yourself! Where did I say that? As I implied, I'm perfectly
happy to try a limited version of software as long as I know what the
limitations are *before* I download about 20 MB of trialware. If
it's time limited they can get nicked, "fully functional" or not.
>admitted procrastinator, like you, would never get around to sending
>in the registration fee. No?
>Hello... It's a "trial" version. It's not a way for you to get
>something for nothing. Look up trial in the dictionary.
Go and learn to read before you crap on yourself again.
>>>But, it does not support volume-to-weight unit conversions. I left a
>>
>>I'm curious as to why you want this?
>
>As I already explained, weight measurements are often much more
>accurate than volume units and they scale far more easily. But most
>recipes come with volume units only. So, a built-in conversion would
>be a helpful utility. That is what comnputers are for.
>
>>Seems to me it would be rather
>>difficult to implement given the varying specific gravities across dry
>>products (and even within them -- e.g. types of sugar).
>
>Yes, it is a bit difficult to implement. MasterCook has done it (sort
>of). But that has nothing whatsoever to do with why it is useful.
>
>>>suggestion on the message board and got a terse reply. It doesn't look
>>>like this is somethng they will look at seriously.
Cheers, Phred.
--
LID