> -----Original Message-----
> From: writelog-admin@contesting.com
> [mailto:writelog-admin@contesting.com]On Behalf Of Gil Baron
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2002 4:25 PM
> To: gw3njw@onetel.net.uk; Eric Scace K3NA; writelog@contesting.com
> Subject: RE: [WriteLog] Operational Characteristics of WL on CW
>
>
> I have to agree with Clive here. There is no reasonable explanation of why
> this cannot be done with WriteLog too. One of the few ways that
> it lags TR.
> Nevertheless, it is still a better program to use as it is a
> widows program
> and allows all the other things you might need to run. This can more than
> make up for that lack of function.
>
> It is also true that with TRLOG the program from time to time got
> confused a
> to which mode it was in or should be in and could cost you as much time as
> the functions saved.
I would dispute this a bit. In my experience TRLog did not get confused as
to which mode it was in. Rather, it was the OPERATOR who got confused,
especially in the wee hours of the morning. But, overall, TRLog provides a
far more efficient CW operational interface than WL, IMHO.
The reason why I started this thread was precisely because I was used to
TRLog's having a rather intelligent way of dealing with S&P vs CQ. Namely,
the keystrokes are identical. WL should offer a way by which it could
optionally understand whether the op is doing S&P or doing run. TR does
this by "watching" the VFO frequency. If it moves more than some amount, it
goes into S&P mode.
Thus, when S&P using TRLog, the operator enters the callsign (or TR does it
automatically from the bandmap - something WL should also implement) and
hits enter. Your call is then sent. Assuming a QSO, you copy the exchange
and hit enter again. This time your exchange is sent and you're done. Two
enters.
When CQing in TRLog, the operator hits enter and CQ starts. When answered,
the operator enters the call sign and hits enter. The exchange is sent.
After you copy his exchange, you hit enter again, which sends whatever
message you've set up, probably a TU call sign TEST. Two enters.
Point is, "enter" is context sensitive. This is much easier than fumbling
for PF4 then PF2 etc.
But, like most things related to "loggers," personal choice is paramount and
personal opinions run high :-)
I, too, am interested in WL because of its Windows base, its integrated
support of sound cards for PFkey-triggered WAV files, its ability to send CW
in the face of Windows, and its usage of ethernet LAN technology instead of
TRLog's archaic serial daisy chaining for M/M configurations. Nice job WL!!
Please put "smart enter" on the wishlist, however ;-) Along with a scroll
bar on the band map so I can see what I'm missing as run operator. I don't
want to have to tune off my run frequency just to move the band map.
73,
Gary W2CS
Apex, NC
>
|