[WriteLog] Writelog's Future

[Alec Otulak]

Jim.

take it easy.

In case You do not realise,
nowaday's Writelog is not contest software.
It is selected mode-/selected-contest software.

Believe me,
there is something more to contesting than CW and RTTY.

Yours,
Alec



-----Original Message-----
From: writelog-bounces at contesting.com
[mailto:writelog-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Jim Rhodes
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 3:00 AM
To: Alec Otulak; writelog at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Writelog's Future

Alec, I don't think any of us really know WHAT you want. Fldigi looks 
like a general purpose multi mode digital program. If that is what 
you want, run it. Writelog is a contest logging program. A different 
animal all together. So before you can expect anyone to take you 
seriously, take some time to get to know the features of Writelog 
before you go spouting all the things you want changed because you 
don't think it does exactly what you want. It does do exactly what I 
want. And yes it does take time. And the help is there in the help 
files and the on-line sources.

At 03:30 PM 11/27/2007, Alec Otulak wrote:




>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 at contesting.com
>[mailto:writelog-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Alec Otulak
>Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 6:17 AM
>To: pcooper at guernsey.net; writelog at 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 at guernsey.net]
>Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 10:30 PM
>To: Alec Otulak; writelog at 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 at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/
>
>_______________________________________________
>WriteLog mailing list
>WriteLog at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
>WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/

Jim Rhodes K0XU
jim at rhodesend.net

Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone. 
_______________________________________________
WriteLog mailing list
WriteLog at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/writelog
WriteLog on the web:  http://www.writelog.com/