On Thu, Jul 07, 2005 at 01:40:25PM -0400, Dick Green WC1M wrote:
> CT is still the
> common denominator for many multis because it is so well known (less time
> and effort to train new ops) and requires absolutely minimal surplus
> computer gear.
That should probably be restated as "less time and effort to retrain _old_
ops..."
> Perhaps rate could be improved with
> TR's Enter feature, but would it be worth the re-training cost?
In my case, going to a multi-op that uses CT incurs a "re-training cost."
Not a very high one, of course, but nonetheless I do have to relearn an
interface I have used in at most 2-3% of the contests in which I've operated
(and that I've only used once in the past seven years!)
The point of my post that started this whole discussion was not whether or
not CT was better or worse than other logging programs. My point was to
contradict the widely-held belief that CT is "so well known" or "everyone
knows CT" or however it is stated.
That assertion is probably true of anyone who has been contesting for 15
years or more, simply because CT was the first widely-available commercial-
grade contest logging program, and the odds are high that anyone active
in contesting then was likely to have used it enough to know it well today.
But consider someone getting into the sport five years ago (or today for
that matter.) There are so many choices in fine logging programs out there,
I think it would be unreasonable to assume that a contester who has become
active in the sport in recent years would necessarily know CT.
So, the validity of the assertion "everyone knows CT" might only be true
if your contesting peer group is mostly older ops.
--
Kenneth E. Harker WM5R
kenharker@kenharker.com
http://www.kenharker.com/
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|