Hi Guys
I just wondered at the risk of being somewhat flamed, whether in fact all
this effort need be made, given the fact that WriteLog is already available.
I actually own and use(d) both pieces of software, and while I did not use
Writelog for anywhere near 13 years - more like 2 years, once I made the
transition to WL, I have not really looked back.
I will also add here that I've been using CT practically from the day it was
publically available, and while I still own it, I am just beginning to be
comfortable enough with the WL software, that I prefer it over CT.
So the bottom line is - shouldn't we check out what's actually available,
before we start trying to re-invent a rounder wheel. For me, learning WF1B
was difficult, since I had all the CT keys programmed into my fingers...
same for WriteLog... but once you spend time with the software, you'll get
the hang of it.
My comments are not ment to upset anyone, but as a real-world comment from
someone who has been there and done that, but who also recognises the need
to move on and as the young 'uns would say - get with the programme.
Just my $00.01 worth...
73, Dean St. Hill - 8P6SH vision2000@sunbeach.net
dsthill@cbcbarbados.bb
----- Original Message -----
From: <ContstEmailAlias@aol.com>
To: <rtty@contesting.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2001 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [RTTY] Wanted
> > 32 bit Windows version of WF1B.
> Sure it could be done
>
> > Must retain the look and feel of the Dos version.
> Many ham programs have tried this and it makes Windows programs hard to
use.
> Windows has a set of style guidelines, so while the interface could be
> similar, it would not be exactly the same. It would need to conform to the
> style guidelines.
>
> Microsoft created the style guidelines because with DOS programs, there
was
> no interface standard. Having the style guidelines make it easy to go
between
> many Windows programs.
>
> > No multiple modes, eye candy or other useless "features".
> What one person would consider eye candy, others would consider a needed
> feature. Since no two people are alike, you try to put in what the
> 'collective' wants.
>
> You can't please everyone. Some want it to rain and some want it to
sunshine,
> both at the same time, and even God can't do that.
>
> > Freeware or under $50.
>
> It costs about $150,000 - $200,000 to do a program from scratch and send
it
> to market. Keep in mind, Ray worked on this code for 13 years adding bits
> and pieces over the years. Probably would take 9-12 months of development
> time.
>
> I did a survery with the TR-Log users about doing a contesting interface
> there. Most just wanted the DOS program to work correctly under Windows,
> which was impossible due to the architecture of the O/S. (especially the
> flawless CW on the LPT port due to Windows preemptive tasking
environment.).
>
>
> So let me challenge the WF1B group.
>
> As you maybe or may not know, you can upgrade to Log Windows for $50.00.
If
> we can get 4,000 WF1B users to upgrade in the next 90 days, that'll give
us
> the revenue to hire the people to take on a project of this magnitude and
> we'll develop the contesting interface.
>
> Not only would this be good for ham raido, but we'd be able to hire more
hams
> into a company that supports doing ham radio software. They'd make a
salary,
> and everyone would win by getting a contesting interface ala WF1B.
>
> How's that for a challenge? Up to it?
>
> Rick - W4PC
> http://www.cssincorp.com
> http://www.logwindows.com
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> RTTY mailing list
> RTTY@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
>
|