<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From Rick, NQ4I:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>>></FONT><FONT size=3>I find it amazing that KC1XX has
turned down win-test over a few irrational discrepancies</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Neither Bill nor I have stated that we "turned down" Win-Test
out-of-hand. I have been evaluating the software for several months,
keeping in mind the operating strategies used at KC1XX. Rick, as an
owner of a Multi-Multi station I'm sure you'd agree each M/M has unique
approaches to contesting, both beyond the norm as well as among the
Multi-Multi's themselves. I respectfully disagree that the issues we
raised are "irrational discrepencies." These issues - for us - stem from
how we operate at XX.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>We're serious about this. These are real issues to
us. </FONT><FONT size=2>We raised them in hopes that it might, at the very
least, start a constructive dialog like other enhancement requests we've seen
mentioned on this reflector.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>>></FONT><FONT size=3>if the same process were used to
evaluate their current program, CT they would turn it down also</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, CT has many issues, which is why we were looking beyond CT in the
first place. Win-Test is the best option for migrating beyond CT for
KC1XX. However, after thoughtful consideration of -- again
-- the operating strategies we employ at XX, there are a few road
blocks:</DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>- <FONT size=3>Bug report 159. Control of radio frequency when
operating split </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>- We'd like to see a couple additional keyboard
commands implemented in CT to reduce 100% reliance on the mouse. A mouse
doesn't provide the speed we're looking for. It's one more peripheral
that requires a level of hand-eye coordination that is unnecessary and
handicapping in a fast-paced contesting environment.
</FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>Specifically, the CT "Ctrl-Right Arrow"
and "Alt-Right Arrow" commands that take focus away from the logging control and
present cursors within the Band Map and DX Spot Announcement windows that are
scrollable with Up/Down arrow keys are two we'd like to see
implemented. </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3><FONT size=2></FONT></FONT></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3><FONT size=2>In my opinion, it's not being
old-fashioned and not willing to get used to a mouse. I'm 32 and don't
remember a computer without a mouse. <g> This is about speed and
accuracy.</FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3><FONT
size=2></FONT> </DIV></FONT></FONT><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>- Alt-F4 does not toggle between run and
last-grabbed-spot frequencies. By "toggle" we mean having the ability
to do unlimited two-way switching from a spot, back to the run frequency, back
to the last selected spot, and so on. This CT feature gets used quite a
lot at XX on bands where we do not man two interlocked stations. Right
now, WT's alt-F4 is only one-way from the spot back to the run frequency.
</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT size=3>- Response time in setting radio frequency,
at least on the Orion. Response time between the software and radio is
critical to being able to utilize the other enhancements listed above
effectively.</FONT></FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT
size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>The WT developers have done very well making WT as CT-like as
possible, which is a huge plus for us. </FONT><FONT size=3>There
are many additional features in Win-Test that are fantastic, many of
which solve the problems with CT that drive us crazy. However, after
weighing the pros and cons, CT remains the better option for KC1XX for
now ***and we don't like that***. We want Win-Test to be the better
option. We thought this would be the right forum to raise these
topics.</FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV></FONT>Thanks for your time and 73,</DIV>
<DIV>Bob WA1Z<BR></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>