--=====================_156986554==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Tree;
I have to agree with everything that you say. I do no have any bone to pick
with you. It is just that it is not practical for me the way I use my
systems to boot to dos just ot run one program. I may be forced to from
time to time , but I do not like it.
I also can see your point about what happens with dos things at your work.
DOS will eventually have to go when all machines are 64 bit as I don't
think anyone is going to write dos to support that.
If it had not been for TRLOG I would not have had a Contest logger these
years and niter would anyone else have had what TRLOG has so nicely provided.
Everyone should appreciate the effort that you have put on this. I have my
doubts it has made you rich, unless you invested all the returns in the
right thing from day one. :-) AND GOT OUT BEFORE APRIL. ;-)
At 09:32 10/15/2001, Tree N6TR wrote:
> > It would be better to have a somewhat cut down version for windows and
> > still have the program live than have NOTHING which is what we WILL
> HAVE in
> > time. It is unavoidable, TRLOG and most other programs that are DOS only
> > will die.
> >
> > OTOH as I said before, it may not be economically justified to do the
> > development. IT would take one like Tree who is not in it only for the
> > money. I do believe that TRLOG is a labor of love for Tree as much as
> > anything else.
>
>There are very few people who are smart enough to write software for
>windows - yet dumb enough to waste that effort on something like
>contest logging.
>
>Maybe when I retire - in about 15 years, I will have time to think
>about this - but it is more likely that someone else will have to
>do it. I don't pretend to be a windows programmer - and doubt I
>will have the motivation to become one.
>
>As far as machines that run DOS - from my vantage point at Intel,
>I see DOS being always supported by the BIOS. Nothing that is
>coming along would remove the backward compatability of the BIOS.
>In fact, all of the BIOS engineers here at Intel rely heavily on
>DOS for their day-to-day work. Probably the lack of legacy serial
>ports is a bigger worry than DOS.
>
>I agree having the program bundled as a windows program would be
>great. That isn't the issue here.
>
>As far as RTTY - TR is not trying to pretend to be a great RTTY
>program. In fact, I came really close to not letting anyone know
>it did RTTY tests. Instead, the intent was to open up this mode
>for people who needed something to do RTTY - and wouldn't otherwise
>go out and get one of the "real" RTTY packages (this describes my
>personal situation exactly). Most of the RTTY coding was done
>during the first half of real RTTY contests - and tested during
>the second half.
>
>I think it is great that some people have given it a try and
>published their results here on the list. I will try to add
>the features they identify as being major obstacles.
>
>Over the past 9 months, I have been involved in a job transition
>here at Intel. This has essentially required me to work two jobs
>at once and it aas left even less time for ham radio and even my
>family. Also, we moved to a new building, which is about 20 minutes
>furture from my house, so I have lost the "morning opening" on
>e-mail before I leave home.
>
>I am glad to say that a major product milestone was achieved on
>Friday and things will start slacking off a little.
>
>I still have about 300 e-mails with bugs and enhancements to plow
>through. Some of them are over a year old. I hope to make some
>progress on that list during the next couple of months.
>
>Finally, I am working on a technical solution to the CQP problem with
>DX stations. Hopefully, I can find a way to allow the DX prefixes from
>the CTY.DAT file to be printed in the QTH received field. AD6E has
>assured me that nobody is losing any QSOs because of this.
>
>See you in the SS CW from Louisiana.
>
>73 Tree
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
>Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
>Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
Gil Baron http://members.home.com/gbaron
W0MN 44.08208 N 92.51263 W 1055'
"Baila como nadie te ve"
--=====================_156986554==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
<html>
Tree;<br>
I have to agree with everything that you say. I do no have any bone to
pick with you. It is just that it is not practical for me the way I use
my systems to boot to dos just ot run one program. I may be forced to
from time to time , but I do not like it.<br>
I also can see your point about what happens with dos things at your
work.<br><br>
DOS will eventually have to go when all machines are 64 bit as I don't
think anyone is going to write dos to support that.<br><br>
If it had not been for TRLOG I would not have had a Contest logger these
years and niter would anyone else have had what TRLOG has so nicely
provided.<br>
Everyone should appreciate the effort that you have put on this. I have
my doubts it has made you rich, unless you invested all the returns in
the right thing from day one. :-) AND GOT OUT BEFORE APRIL. ;-)<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
At 09:32 10/15/2001, Tree N6TR wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>> It would be better to have a
somewhat cut down version for windows and <br>
> still have the program live than have NOTHING which is what we WILL
HAVE in <br>
> time. It is unavoidable, TRLOG and most other programs that are DOS
only <br>
> will die.<br>
><br>
> OTOH as I said before, it may not be economically justified to do
the <br>
> development. IT would take one like Tree who is not in it only for
the <br>
> money. I do believe that TRLOG is a labor of love for Tree as much
as <br>
> anything else.<br><br>
There are very few people who are smart enough to write software for
<br>
windows - yet dumb enough to waste that effort on something like<br>
contest logging.<br><br>
Maybe when I retire - in about 15 years, I will have time to think<br>
about this - but it is more likely that someone else will have to <br>
do it. I don't pretend to be a windows programmer - and doubt
I<br>
will have the motivation to become one.<br><br>
As far as machines that run DOS - from my vantage point at Intel,<br>
I see DOS being always supported by the BIOS. Nothing that is
<br>
coming along would remove the backward compatability of the BIOS.<br>
In fact, all of the BIOS engineers here at Intel rely heavily on<br>
DOS for their day-to-day work. Probably the lack of legacy
serial<br>
ports is a bigger worry than DOS.<br><br>
I agree having the program bundled as a windows program would be <br>
great. That isn't the issue here.<br><br>
As far as RTTY - TR is not trying to pretend to be a great RTTY <br>
program. In fact, I came really close to not letting anyone
know<br>
it did RTTY tests. Instead, the intent was to open up this
mode<br>
for people who needed something to do RTTY - and wouldn't otherwise<br>
go out and get one of the "real" RTTY packages (this describes
my<br>
personal situation exactly). Most of the RTTY coding was done
<br>
during the first half of real RTTY contests - and tested during<br>
the second half.<br><br>
I think it is great that some people have given it a try and <br>
published their results here on the list. I will try to add<br>
the features they identify as being major obstacles. <br><br>
Over the past 9 months, I have been involved in a job transition<br>
here at Intel. This has essentially required me to work two
jobs<br>
at once and it aas left even less time for ham radio and even my<br>
family. Also, we moved to a new building, which is about 20
minutes<br>
furture from my house, so I have lost the "morning opening" on
<br>
e-mail before I leave home.<br><br>
I am glad to say that a major product milestone was achieved on <br>
Friday and things will start slacking off a little.<br><br>
I still have about 300 e-mails with bugs and enhancements to plow<br>
through. Some of them are over a year old. I hope to make
some <br>
progress on that list during the next couple of months.<br><br>
Finally, I am working on a technical solution to the CQP problem
with<br>
DX stations. Hopefully, I can find a way to allow the DX prefixes
from<br>
the CTY.DAT file to be printed in the QTH received field. AD6E
has<br>
assured me that nobody is losing any QSOs because of this.
<br><br>
See you in the SS CW from Louisiana.<br><br>
73 Tree<br><br>
--<br>
FAQ on
WWW:
<a href="http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog";
eudora="autourl">http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog</a><br>
Submissions:
trlog@contesting.com<br>
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com<br>
Problems:
owner-trlog@contesting.com<br>
Feature
Wishlist:<x-tab> </x-tab>
<a href="http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html";
eudora="autourl">http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html</a></blockquote>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
<font face="Courier New, Courier">Gil Baron
<a href="http://members.home.com/gbaron";
eudora="autourl">http://members.home.com/gbaron</a><br>
W0MN 44.08208 N 92.51263 W 1055'<br>
"Baila como nadie te ve" <br>
</font></html>
--=====================_156986554==_.ALT--
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|