[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CQ-Contest] CT vs. N1MM

To: <cq-contest@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CT vs. N1MM
From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov@w5ov.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:02:03 -0500
List-post: <mailto:cq-contest@contesting.com>
I find myself in an awkward position of agreeing in principle with Mal.

Sometimes, the programmers are pulled away from the fundamentals by demands
of some of the more inventive and creative users. Often, it seems as though
they are just being lazy asking for more complexity and features. Some of
these "improvements" cause the program to go off and do things that I don't
want being done automatically and it drives me crazy!

One of the key benefits of the N1MM platform is that it is fully
configurable. It can work just like CT did in the old days... 

Callsign <spacebar> Enter

Same thing!

The ESM (Enter Sends Messages) thing, which has roots in how TR worked takes
some getting used to if you come from a CT or NA background. But, once you
get used to it, it is great. Basically, when we used to press the Ins
(Insert) and + (plus) keys on the numeric keypad while running in CT - with
ESM, you only press the Enter key to perform those functions. For laptop
users, this is a fantastic solution. Even this powerful ESM feature has been
modified and finely tuned into a very flexible and useful tool for even us
old CT users.

While you can use N1MM to conduct your own "Magnum Opus" contest logging
operation, it does the essentials very well too.

N1MM, N2AMG and the rest of the development team have done a great job.

Bob W5OV

-----Original Message-----
From: N7MAL [mailto:N7MAL@CITLINK.NET] 
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:07 AM
To: cq-contest@contesting.com; Peter Dougherty
Cc: k7qq
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CT vs. N1MM

I'm a CT person and have seen a few mis-representations here which need to 
be corrected. First I run, and have for years, CT on an XP SP2 machine with 
no problems and no work arounds. I have my FT1000 connected through the 
serial port for band tracking and the parallel port for CW keying(I don't 
operate ever in any fone contest). My setup BTW is also a dual monitor 
system with the Maxon card.
Quack used the word simple to describe CT & NA which is as it SHOULD be for 
contesting. I want one window covering my entire screen with minimal 
information to deal with. The purpose/goal of a contest is to log as many 
stations & multipliers as possible in a given amount of time. Therefore the 
only info I want on my screen is logging and multiplier and I want it to 
cover my entire screen. I don't think Quack has been as successful as he has

been because his time was being wasted with a bunch of windows containing 
unimportant info. I realize it is fashionable these days to create and use 
'bell & whistles' but let's remember why and what the purpose of entering a 
contest is.
Unfortunately/sadly CT is out of business and we need to move on. Making 
comparisons of CT to N1MM is unfair because CT was designed by a contester 
for contesters. N1MM was designed by computer geeks for computer geeks.
CT is still very useable for the vast majority of contests so I will 
continue to use it. Maybe someone someday will pick up the CT format and 
continue to up-date it.


CQ-Contest mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>