[TRLog] TRLog in the RTTY Sprint (long)
Guy Olinger, K2AV
Mon, 15 Oct 2001 21:42:24 -0400
I am really tired of substituting mouse wiggles for perfectly good
Is there possibly another approach that could actually make some money?
There are a lot of us that have various dos programs we have had for
years and can CTL-whatever in our sleep. NOT just TRLog.
TR is but one of SEVERAL DOZEN hangers-on I keep around.
I would pay TWO hundred dollars for a dos box that REALLY WORKED. Not
for a windows version of those two dozen programs, but a SINGLE DOS BOX
that has some development to keep it current. A windows program that
was a shell to run old dos programs, really, reliably, with some slicks.
Mickey Sloth hasn't put in a minute on dos box code in almost a decade.
It is the demise of the dos box (to FORCE us to buy windows programs to
replace the old ones) that is the problem here.
If you can get a windows program to send smooth cw running on a 1.8 GHz
PC (you SHOULD be able to), why not a windows program "dos box" pulling
the same strings.
I would pay good money for something like "DA BOX" to keep my oldies
running. And DA BOX would appeal to other people besides hams.
PS, don't EVER listen to a bunch of hams talking about whether they want
to pay for something. They all sound like they would cheat the kids out
of ice cream money. If you want to know whether they will spend money or
not, look at their radio toys....
Guy Olinger, K2AV
Apex, NC, USA
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [TRLog] TRLog in the RTTY Sprint (long)
> This is NOT what I said.
> First, Windows is a stable O/S, much more stable than dos. In my
> life, I wrote Operating System code for The Software Link, on the
> Multiuser/Multitasking version of DOS called PC-MOS. From that
> and my time with Microsoft and my friends at Microsoft, I do know that
> the 9X and NT based versions of Windows are much better code than DOS
> Second, the goal would have been to create a functionality equivalent
> TRLog for the Windows O/S. While some features would be changed (i.e
> networking, etc), it would just take time to have a full featured
> The reason we didn't proceed with the project is that after I compiled
> results of the survey, most users wanted a DOS version of TRLog that
> well under Windows. Many of the users didn't want to pay one dime for
> Windows upgrade, even though I was going to invest over $100,000 to do
> Also, Tree would have gotten a royalty and W4SCO (owner of Log
> have gotten a royalty from each sale (as they should), so I didn't see
> way to repay the investment or even look at making a profit, if the
> userbase wanted the Windows version for free or didn't want it all.
> And if any if you think that there is a profit in writing ham
> may want to rethink you assumptions. :) The ham market is such a tiny
> market, even as compared to hobby markets like Stage Magic and
> Rick - W4PC
> In a message dated 10/15/2001 9:48:27 AM Central Daylight Time,
> email@example.com writes:
> > The proposed port of TR Log to Windows would have been done by W4PC
> > others at Creative Services Software - not by Tree. W4PC did a
> > research and concluded that TR Log users would not be likely to
> > from a stable, feature-rich product on a real-time OS to something
> > (at least for a while would be) a developing, feature-poor product
> > unstable OS. You could argue that a better market to target would
> > those who are not already invested in TR Log, but nonetheless,
> > why W4PC claims to have dropped the project.
> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
> Submissions: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
> Problems: email@example.com
> Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html