Jim Reisert AD1C wrote:
> --- Vesselin Kotarov <V.Kotarov@cnsys.bg> wrote:
>
>
>> Wouldn't it be easier to use the builtin CT keyer?
>>
It would if the general logging programs would support it, but that's
probably not going to happen.
And Ed K1EP said, "the CT keyer is not that smooth" .... Although I
somewhat agree - it is not my
favorite keyer for ragchewing, it is good for fills, etc. I also think
that is dependent on the PC - what
all is running in the background.
For CQ WW CW I used the Startup utility for Win2K and got rid of
everything that starts up from any
where and the keyer was fine and in Win 98 I got rid of everything in
the Startup group!
>
> p.s. I wish CTWIN would support COM port keying (everyone else does). I also
> wish CT would support the K1EL keyer (and variations like microHam keyer).
>
I agree with that .... I have a K1EL Winkeyer that works with Logger32
and it's great!
73 Hank K8DD
_______________________________________________
CT-User mailing list
CT-User@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ct-user
CT on the web: http://www.k1ea.com/
|