WriteLog
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [WriteLog] Networked Ops (long)

To: <writelog@contesting.com>
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Networked Ops (long)
From: "Charles Morrison" <cfmorris@bellsouth.net>
Reply-to: cfmorris@bellsouth.net
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:03:32 -0500
List-post: <mailto:writelog@contesting.com>
I've questioned the reliability of TCP/IP networking on Writelog since WPX
CW this year.  It was the first year that I had more then 2 computers
connected to the network at one time out at W5WMU.  Previously since the
introduction of tcp/ip over Netdde, I never had problems.  I personally had
contested several times since the release of 10.59D using TCP/IP and didn't
have problems.  But when Pat decided to add his laptop to the network and it
was set to ip, all hell would break loose in less then 20 minutes.  Finally
in frustration, I changed back to Netdde and it ran fine for the remainder
of the contest.  Of course this brings in a whole new issue for those not
familiar with XP Pro or 2000, users, rights and shares.  TCP/IP issues
remain and are still as of yet unsolved.

Not to add salt to an open wound, but I have to agree with Ford on the
remainder of his original email as well.  Although I have no problems with
Writelog, Im a network engineer by profession, Pat struggles with simply
using Windows.  The problem of course is that he's old school, and believe
me, it was hard enough to get him to computer log in the first place.  He
cut his teeth on NA, and I have to admit, although it lacks functionality,
and not because its DOS based, its much more reliable then Writelog.  It's a
cookie cutter approach to each and every single contest for him.  Explaining
why this window or that window may open differently each time is baffling to
him.  He doesn't understand why connecting 2 computers together is a 4 step
process that must be repeated each time the darn thing crashes (he asked
about why Windows crashed, and I told him that it wouldn't in a utopian
world).  He questions why features such as the change in frequency doesn't
signal run vs. s/p in contests like sprint (which is returns to NA each time
because of this VERY problem).  He wants the enter sends qrz, but questions
why its not smart enough to know that he's searching and pouncing and not
running.  

Sadly these issues have been addressed in other applications, and I've
mentioned them to him in the past.  Although it will affect my score in
coming contests, I've had too many people mention to me that N1MM's learning
curve isnt that difficult for WL users, and therefore the next minor
contests that I operate, I may be test driving a new application.

Charlie
KI5XP



> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:00:05 -0400
> From: "Steve Gorecki" <ve3cwj@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Networked Ops (long)
> To: WriteLog@contesting.com
> Message-ID: <BAY109-F233F441CE81EED9FA38916917E0@phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
> 
> I'll have to side a bit with Ford in this topic. We had 3 
> stations (2A + 
> GOTA) this weekend, and had continuing problems. All stations 
> Win2k or XP 
> pro, all hard-coded IP addresses
> 
> Physically, the "A" station was in the middle of the network, 
> wired to the 
> GOTA through a switch. Station "B" was at the other end via a 
> wireless link. 
> At times "B" could see GOTA log and vise versa, but no one 
> could see the "A" 
> station. This means the network integrity was ok, as one end 
> could see the 
> other end. The station right at the switch, "A" could not see 
> the logs until 
> we restarted WL. Other times, "B would get lost until he 
> restarted WL. GOTO 
> produced those "duplicate" QSOs that someone else already described...
> 
> Yes, RF could be a factor. A few years ago, we ran everything 
> wired, and a 
> lot of "bumps" due to RF, but WL recovered quickly in those 
> cases, mostly on 
> it's own.
> 
> In this field day, the CW ops were getting messed up by the 3 
> second or so 
> delay while WL tried re-connects. This was unacceptable 
> behaviour, we lost 
> some contacts because of the recovery within WL. I know it is 
> more likely a 
> Mcrosoft networking issue (the delays), but any such delay 
> should not affect 
> the function keys of lockup of WL during the relink attempt.
> 
> My suggestion is to keep trying to fix this TCP netowrking 
> problem, WL is 
> good otherwise....but it needs some serious look-over of the 
> netwoking code.
> 
> Steve
> VE3CWJ
> 

_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/

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