In article <[email hidden]>, Paul Saunders
url=''URL:/url said:Chris said:The fact that width of route or track cannot be
altered is a drawback (presuming it is not the result
of OS pressure!), but why were the routes/tracks
thinner in MM3?Track widths and other stuff are user configurable
in Anquet.Why so many OS restrictions with MM when Anquet doesn't
seem to suffer from the same limitations?
As I've pointed out, the big restriction with Anquet is
that each map has to be copied to hard disc and registered
before it can be used. That process ties you to use of
each map on only one computer. With MM you can run the
maps off of the CDs which means you can pop a CD into a
laptop an use it there or you can run it off of the CDs on
a desktop machine. Also the MM licence allows you to
upload copies of the OS maps to a PDA for use with the PDA
version of the MM software.
So both MM and Anquet do have restrictions, they're just
different restrictions.
Mike <URL:http://www.path.cam.ac.uk/~mrc7/>
--
o/ \\ // |\ ,_ o Mike Clark <\__,\\ // __o | \ / /\, "A
mountain climbing, cycling, skiing, "> || _`\<,_ |__\ \>
| immunology lecturer, antibody engineer and ` || (_)/
(_) | \corn computer user"