[CQ-Contest] Radio appliances [was: CTU Survey Results]

[Joe Subich, W4TV]

Bob, 

You're off base here ... 

> I respectfully need to take exception to your statement that 
> hams are wrong thinking computers should be able to integrate 
> into a hamshack without knowledge of their (computers) 
> operation. I believe we DO have the right to expect seamless 
> integration. This expectation is what pushes technology 
> forward. Are we there yet? Absolutely not! Is it a worthy 
> goal? Absolutely, yes!

Amateur radio is a technical hobby.  Those who engage in it 
should at least know how their equipment operates and how to 
operate the equipment.  That goes to being able to turn on 
the computer, connect the proper cables (and understand what 
the proper cables are!), as well as install and configure their 
chosen software.  For a user to expect a developer to create 
default configurations to handle every possible combination 
of computer hardware, transceiver and accessories is hubris. 

Even today, anyone who has progressed beyond the shack on a 
belt level needs to understand how to connect a microphone 
and antenna to a radio - and determine if the antenna is for 
the correct frequency/band.  That same level of knowledge 
must be applied to the computer applications.  Users need 
to understand the basics of serial port communication - 
data rate, parity, stop bits, and the names/functions of the 
handshake signals.  

73, 

   ... Joe, W4TV 
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com 
> [mailto:cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of 
> Robert Chudek - K0RC
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 1:17 PM
> To: cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: [CQ-Contest] Radio appliances [was: CTU Survey Results]
> 
> 
> Bob,
> 
> I respectfully need to take exception to your statement that 
> hams are wrong thinking computers should be able to integrate 
> into a hamshack without knowledge of their (computers) 
> operation. I believe we DO have the right to expect seamless 
> integration. This expectation is what pushes technology 
> forward. Are we there yet? Absolutely not! Is it a worthy 
> goal? Absolutely, yes!
> 
> Here's an example of what I'm suggesting:
> 
> Serial ports... Have your mother try to hook two pieces of 
> gear together using serial ports. She will need a knowledge 
> of protocol, speed, connectors, bits, parity, null or 
> straight thru cable, etc, etc, etc...
> 
> Compare that to USB. She needs to know basically, nothing... 
> She plugs her camera, scanner, external disk drive, mouse, or 
> whatever (radio?) into the end of the cable and the computer 
> automatically detects the device and sets itself up. She can 
> get right to the task at hand (using her new device).
> 
> As time passes, our radios will become even more of an 
> "appliance". We should expect, better yet, demand the 
> manufacturers accelerate the integration of radio and 
> computer technology. USB ports have been available since 
> 1996. Why wasn't USB integrated into our radios a long time 
> ago? Hams are supposed to be using leading edge technologies 
> (so "they" say). So why do I need a level converter and know 
> the serial parameters for my radio? And why is every other 
> radio different? And why isn't there a standardized 
> communication protocol, similar to ADIF, that will control all radios?
> 
> Answer me this... Why?... huh, just why?  :-)
> 
> One last shot at this concept... when you go to play a game 
> of baseball you're really not interested in how the bats and 
> balls are made. Although it might be interesting to some, it 
> is not relevant to the task at hand... playing baseball.
> 
> <soapbox=stepdown>
> 
> I do realize you are referring to integrating OLD technology 
> and new computers. I agree we are in a "transition period" 
> where all the old stuff hasn't found its way to the landfill 
> yet. And as frugal as hams are, that may take more than a few 
> more decades.
> 
> 73 de Bob - KØRC in MN
> 
> ...I'm turning into my father and I can't stop it...
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 11:52:27 -0500
> From: "Robert Naumann" <w5ov at w5ov.com>
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CTU Survey Results
> To: <cq-contest at contesting.com>
> Message-ID: <000f01c7be5b$b59041e0$0301a8c0 at SONYRB42G>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Bill,
> 
> I presume that you are referring to my comments so I will respond.
> 
> My response was to point out that Andy N2NT's summary was 
> correct when he
> said TR would not work on a Windows machine. Anyone trying to 
> run TR on a
> real Windows (WinNT, 2K, XP, or Vista) machine will NOT have 
> success. If
> someone was considering running TR on a new Vista machine, he 
> or she should
> know that it will not work.
> 
> I think that many wrongly think that they have a right to 
> incorporate a
> computer into their ham activities without needing to understand how
> computers work. I could go on, but I think that says all that 
> needs be said.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Bob W5OV
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Parry [mailto:BPARRY at RGV.RR.COM] 
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:21 AM
> To: 'Zack Widup'; cq-contest at contesting.com
> Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] CTU Survey Results
> 
> I think these posts point out some of the problems that a lot 
> of us face
> with computer logging, computer interfaces, etc. My son is the in the
> software business and, although this certainly doesn't make 
> me an expert, I
> have had some insights.
> 
> I don't care if Windows 3.1, 98, XP or Vista is or isn't a 
> real Windows OS.
> Bob, this doesn't mean that I am trying to put you down, what 
> it does mean
> is that many of us want to USE computers not understand the 
> "insides." I
> love my computer but my hobby is ham radio. I learned right 
> away that asking
> a "knowledgeable computer guy" for instructions was likely to be very
> frustrating. The verbal instructions are likely to assume 
> that you know far
> more than you know, and are given much too quickly. Sometimes 
> (not always)
> there is a little bit of an attitude (this is really simple 
> and if you don't
> get it, you are either stupid or you should not have bought 
> the piece of
> software!)
> 
> Unfortunately, some of the hardware that is being sold has those same
> attributes. The instructions are unclear, and the computer 
> interfaces with
> that equipment are OS dependent, maybe they work with a 
> particular computer
> and maybe not.
> 
> I realize that writing clear instructions is not a skill that 
> many software
> programmers have. The "help" files are good example of that! 
> I have become
> very careful about what I buy. The very best piece of 
> software without clear
> instructions and support is a waste of money, no matter if it 
> costs $25 or
> $2500. When I install a piece of software it should work, I 
> should not have
> to make revisions in the registry, or reinstall windows to 
> make it work (I
> have had both of these scenarios this month).
> 
> Bill, W5VX
> 
> 
> - - - - ADDITIONAL THREAD TRIMMED - - - -
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> 
>