Hello all,
I can understand where Filip is coming from, given that he is a
competent programmer. However, I am not happy that I have to enter a
long (very long) .ini file to set transverter offsets, define radios,
set com ports, etc.... I am an engineer and have programming experience.
But I still dislike having to do this.
I would be happy to see drop down windows to set these things from the
main screen. Anything that can be done to make W/L more user friendly
would be most welcome to me. I have had the program for several years
and have only used it a couple of times because of the complexity of
setting up my station conditions. I use alternate programs to work VHF
and higher contests.
Just my opinion....
Dave, K4TO
Byron Lichtenwalner wrote:
> Dear Filip
> While logging contest calls is perhaps the fundamental application WL, there
> are many others that make me a better contester. Examples:New multiplier
> recognition, efficient running of two radios and auto logging of their
> settings, ability to recognize partial calls, automatically finding antenna
> headings, and on and on.
>
> I believe the developers, after long experience as successful contest
> operators, chose the development tools that were the best available at the
> time to perform the multiple functions that many of us desired(required).
>
> What are you suggesting as an alternative?
>
> Look forward in seeing you in the next contest.
>
> Byron, W3WKR
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Filip Poverud" <Filip.Poverud@ergogroup.no>
> To: "Alec Otulak" <sp2ewq@wp.pl>
> Cc: <writelog@contesting.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2007 6:24 PM
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future
>
>
>> I would like to tell you about my self.
>>
>> I'm 32 years old. Born in Poland, citizen of Norway.
>> Working as a Senior Consultant on CRM/MiddleWare solutions.
>> I have a strong developer bacground and my education is within technical
>> chemistry and microbiology.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> One thing that I have observed is the fact that we face a hierarchy in
>> our real lifes.
>> We have one counterpartner, and ourselfes.
>>
>> In this context, the WL context, we have the developer and the members
>> of the forum.
>> The members may be observed as actors with an interest in WL.
>> The developer is also an actor with interests in WL.
>>
>> The challenge occurs when one part of the actors tend to find GUI as the
>> important factor for solving a usecase.
>> We have to ask: WHat is the purpose of WL.
>>
>> In my humble opinion, the purpose is to efficiently log QSOs within a
>> contest.
>> For this purpose, I do not need GUI, ... I need efficient functionality.
>>
>> Hence, I do not care about useless colors or cool toolbars.
>> As long as WL does the logging, I'm satisfied ... because it solves my
>> request, the usecase which is to log a QSO.
>> And this is solved perfectly.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> If anyone want more diamonds ... pls. use another logger with all that
>> cool monkey crap.
>> Try to distinguish inbetween what you need and what you would like to
>> spam your computer with.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> I don't say that Alec is a fool and I'm the master.
>> I only know by many years of experience while working with business
>> processes ... that the answer is not colors and fancy GUI ... but a
>> simple function that resolve the usecase of importance.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> with Regards
>> Filip Poverud
>>
>> 73 de LB1UE
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
>> Sent: 27. november 2007 22:31
>> To: pcooper@guernsey.net; writelog@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> As I seem to have recovered after the CQ-WW I want You to know I have
>> replied to Your further message.
>> However, I cannot see it posted at all.
>>
>> In my reply I have suggested implementation of the codes within
>> Writelog, which I find successfully used in 'Digital Master 780'
>> and are published at http://www.w1hkj.com/Fldigi.html
>>
>> I have many more ideas which I would like to share. However, before I do
>> that I need to know whether there is anybody who may want to listen to
>> me at all.
>>
>> By the way, during CQ-WW I could not use Writelog because it had taken
>> me too much time to configure it, so there was no time left to get a
>> feel of it, in this respect the deficiency is Writelog's obsolete 'help
>> file'.
>>
>> Have You received that message,
>> please ?
>>
>> Yours,
>> Alec
>> SP2EWQ/2
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: writelog-bounces@contesting.com
>> [mailto:writelog-bounces@contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
>> Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:17 AM
>> To: pcooper@guernsey.net; writelog@contesting.com
>> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future with PSK31
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Phil,
>>
>> Yes, You were/are absolutely clear.
>> I do hope my point was/is also as clear as Yours.
>> Writelog has become MY software. However, it does not meet my
>> expectations, and the opinions I have presented are not just mine.
>>
>> It is good we agree: improvements are welcome to it.
>>
>> 73,
>> Alec
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Phil Cooper [mailto:pcooper@guernsey.net]
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:30 PM
>> To: Alec Otulak; writelog@contesting.com
>> Subject: RE: Writelog's Future with PSK31
>>
>> Hi Alec,
>>
>> You are missing the point here. WL does an EXCELLENT job on it's own,
>> and really does NOT need any additional "bells & whistles" to "improve"
>> it.
>>
>> I was merely suggesting that there is nothing stopping you opening
>> another program to get a full spectrum of what is happening on the band.
>>
>> Personally, I only had the second window open to see what else was
>> around.
>> The problem with that is - being a wide band decode - you can't always
>> see the weaker stations with this second window. Most times, all you
>> decode are those stations who insist on using way too much power for a
>> mode such as PSK31. (And PLEASE do not let us get into a discussion of
>> power levels and PSK again!) The advantage of WL is that it offers way
>> superior decoding, so you get to work stations you would not otherwise
>> hear.
>>
>> My suggestion was to show that WL does NOT need to implement things
>> which are already available to you!
>>
>> I am not going to suggest that WL cannot be improved, but it is up to
>> the individual to use whatever means they can to assist in ways which
>> are available readily.
>>
>> An example of this may be that I sometimes open a second instance of
>> MMTTY, and choose a different "PROFILE" to see what differences are
>> decoded. I have sometimes opened MMVARI, just to see what difference
>> that makes.
>>
>> Does that imply a deficiency in WL? No, it does not, and nor should WL
>> be considered inferior simply because it is my choice to open a second
>> MMTTY or MMVARI window.
>>
>> I hope that makes my position clear?
>>
>> 73 for now,
>>
>> Phil GU0SUP
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WriteLog mailing list
>> WriteLog@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> WriteLog mailing list
>> WriteLog@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>> _______________________________________________
>> WriteLog mailing list
>> WriteLog@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> WriteLog mailing list
> WriteLog@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
> WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
>
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web: http://www.writelog.com/
|