Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[WriteLog\]\s+Possible\s+Problem\s+with\s+10\.56C\s+No\s+Problem\s*$/: 17 ]

Total 17 documents matching your query.

1. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Ted Huf W4ZE" <ted@w4ze.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 11:23:42 -0500
I used 10.56C in the TARA RTTY contest and had no problem with the NO RIG. This was very prevalent before. The setup is IC-756 PRO3 and microHam micro Keyer (ver 3.0.2.903 firmware 02.05). I have the
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00034.html (8,156 bytes)

2. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "JE Brown" <W4LC@fuse.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 01:01:18 -0000
So far four ops have reported having the "No Rig" problem, i.e. when quickly tuning up or down the band, the program loses the rig, and it stays lost. These were using FT-1000, TS850, and IC756's. I
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00037.html (9,530 bytes)

3. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: DougN1@aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 12:27:05 EST
You can make that 5 ops. I should have known better than to install a new upgrade just before a contest. I use 756's and get the "no rig" without touching anything. Very frustrating and probably cost
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00042.html (7,139 bytes)

4. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: Jim Reisert AD1C <jjreisert@alum.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:19:20 -0800 (PST)
I did some extensive testing for the microHAM folks with firmware 2.5. I set up Writelog (10.56 A beta I believe) with Winkey active and had my IC-756 scanning a 100 KHz segment of a band up/down for
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00043.html (9,126 bytes)

5. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: Steve AI9T <steve@ai9t.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:47:39 -0500
Doug Mine was exactly the same way. It would loose the rig freq while doing nothing. Running ICOMS here too. (proII and III) The band map would also lock up when this happened. I had to keep a close
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00044.html (8,227 bytes)

6. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Rob K6RB" <k6rb@baymoon.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:42:33 -0800
I installed 10.56C before the ARRL 160 contest and it ran flawlessly. No problem with the FT-1000 following the frequency changes, even when tuning quickly. Maybe it is a problem common to TARA, or I
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00045.html (9,726 bytes)

7. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: n5po@juno.com
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 16:58:08 -0600
Rob, My self and also K5BG, both running FT-1000 w/WIN XP had to go back to 10.55D because of the "No Rig" problem in 10.56C. 10.55D has always and still does run flawlessly, but not 10.56C Lee, N5PO
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00046.html (11,747 bytes)

8. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: k4sb@bellsouth.net
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 23:24:34 +0000
Guys, with the below problems, I would suspect something other than WL is causing the problem, and that something is probably somewhere in XP. 73 Ed Running ICOMS here too. (proII and III) The band m
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00047.html (8,333 bytes)

9. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Rob K6RB" <k6rb@baymoon.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:31:36 -0800
I should have added I host WL on top of W98SE - not XP. Rob K6RB _______________________________________________ WriteLog mailing list WriteLog@contesting.com http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/list
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00048.html (8,948 bytes)

10. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Wayne, W5XD" <w5xd@writelog.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:39:58 -0000
quickly I suspect if you redo your survey and ask this time what kind of COMM port your correspondents are running, you will find a little more commonality. 10.56 introduced a change to work around
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00049.html (8,750 bytes)

11. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: n5po@juno.com
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 20:19:30 -0600
The fix below took care of my problem...10.56D works fine for me now. Lee, N5PO On Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:39:58 -0000 "Wayne, W5XD" <w5xd@writelog.com> writes: ___________________________________________
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00050.html (10,477 bytes)

12. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Gary Senesac AL9A" <al9a@pobox.mtaonline.net>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:43:46 -0900
I was reluctant to upgrade to 10.56C after reading all the posts about losing rig communication. Wayne's post today convinced me that if the problem was related to COMM port communication I probably
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00051.html (8,916 bytes)

13. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: Steve AI9T <steve@ai9t.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 07:02:33 -0500
Wayne & All I have 3 different kinds of serial ports in my PC Homebrew/Intel Motherboard Motherboard = serenum.sys & serial.sys dll not listed PCI 1 = serenum.sys & cbserial.sys & cbPort.dll PCI 2 =
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00053.html (10,803 bytes)

14. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <k4ik@subich.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:49:29 -0500
On behalf of the fine folks at microHAM, I take offense at Wayne's assertion that the microHAM driver is buggy. microHAM have made several changes in the microKEYER and CW Keyer firmware, including j
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00056.html (9,549 bytes)

15. [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: Phil Theis <phil@k3tuf.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:31:55 -0500
I am usually a quiet bystander (and happy WL user) but the post by Joe Subich, W4TV of microHAM America, LLC really bothers me. Wayne's comment was in regard to "a bug", which, by the way, ALL progra
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00060.html (8,831 bytes)

16. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: g4fka@aol.com
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 15:46:45 EST
If it is of any consolation to both sides of the WL/MH interface I worked over 700 Qs in CQWWCW using WL10.55D and MH - not a single "No Rig" all weekend! Geoff G4FKA ________________________________
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00062.html (8,190 bytes)

17. Re: [WriteLog] Possible Problem with 10.56C No Problem (score: 1)
Author: "Wayne, W5XD" <w5xd@writelog.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:54:50 -0000
...stuff deleted assertion that the microHAM driver is buggy. ...stuff deleted OK, I apologize for my use of the word "bug". I should have said "limitation". As for being offended, I am, too. Wayne,
/archives//html/WriteLog/2005-12/msg00070.html (8,430 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu