[CQ-Contest] Linux Logging Programs

Chris Plumblee chris.plumblee at gmail.com
Tue Oct 20 21:40:14 EDT 2015

Hi Jim,

I'm a convert to Win-Test for most contests. I prefer the Win-Test
implementation of editing previous QSOs, as I don't have to take my hands
away from the keyboard to grab the mouse.

I also like that Win-Test will run on older computer hardware. After the
N4WW log reached a sufficient size, in a multi-op at CQWW CW 2014, I found
that the N1MM+ networking got screwy. In the end, I could never get the six
band-station logs merged satisfactorily after the contest. Similar QSO
numbers and spot rates in ARRL CW in February with Win-Test were no problem
on essentially the same computer hardware.

Win-Test also does a better job (IMHO) of making it known when a station
worked on one band is a mult on another band.

N1MM+ is far superior to Win-Test for RTTY, and N1MM+ has a far better
implementation of ESM. It also has a much more robust support community
than Win-Test. From what I can tell the developers of Win-Test have no
intention of fixing a serious bug in serial number assignment that could
result in sending and logging different serial numbers when using an
in-band mult station. For that reason, I'll continue to use N1MM+ in
contests with serial numbers for now.

It really comes down to preference. N1MM+ is marginally worse in editing
QSOs after the fact, and requires more advanced computer hardware than
Win-Test. It handles serial numbers (in SS and WPX CW, primarily)
correctly. Win-Test runs better on vintage computers, and can handle large
logs and significant spot volume better.

I tell new ops at N4WW all the time that, if they're conversant in CT, they
can use Win-Test. We're rapidly reaching a time when you'll ask young
contesters if they're familiar with CT and you'll get blank stares. I'm 33
and if I hadn't started contesting before college I might have been too
late for it.

Chris WF3C

On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 4:54 PM, George K5KG via CQ-Contest <
cq-contest at contesting.com> wrote:

> Hello Jim,
> I prefer the "CT" look and feel of WT over that of N1MM+.  Also use the
> Targets File feature for virtually every contest.  Not sure that N1MM+ has
> that feature.  WT support is excellent, especially with the support of N6TV.
> The downside of WT, however, is the limited number of contest modules.
> For the ones that are missing, I use WL.  Our club uses N3FJP for FD, but I
> am not fond of it.  I did use N1MM+ for the August NA Sprint, and it worked
> just fine, but it's not my cup 'o tea.
> 73, George, K5KG.
> On 10/20/2015 1:17 PM, Jim Brown wrote:
>> On Tue,10/20/2015 2:09 AM, Dez Watson wrote:
>>> Win-Test isn't freeware but in my opinion is worth paying the small fee.
>> I'm a long time N1MM user, upgraded to Plus a year or so ago. Before
>> that, I used WriteLog, switching to N1MM around 2007, not because of cost,
>> but because I liked it a lot better. I found N1MM to have more useful
>> features, be better supported, and better documented.
>> I'd be interested in hearing what it is about WinTest that makes it
>> better than N1MM Plus. Is it more than "key assignments are like the DOS
>> program I used for 15 years before the DOS computer died?"
>> 73, Jim K9YC
>> _______________________________________________
>> CQ-Contest mailing list
>> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
> --
> George Wagner, K5KG
> Sarasota, FL
> 941-400-1960
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest

Chris Plumblee

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list