Hi Bob....I hope you see that my post is somewhat toungue in cheek...hi...GL in convincing Matt...I look back and wonder why I did not do it earlier...hi...73 and see you in the pile ups..de Rick nq4i<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 12/9/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Bob Raymond, WA1Z</b> <<a href="mailto:bob@wa1z.net">bob@wa1z.net</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><font size="2">From Rick, NQ4I:</font></div><span class="q">
<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></span>
<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><span class="q">
<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></span>
<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> </font></font></div><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></div></font>Thanks for your time and 73,</font></div><span class="sg">
<div>Bob WA1Z<br> </div></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>Support mailing list<br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:Support@win-test.com">Support@win-test.com
</a><br><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.f5mzn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support" target="_blank">http://www.f5mzn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support</a><br><br></blockquote>
</div><br>