One short note on this subject.
I started the same way. I learned on the FIRST releases of CT then NA.
After my first couple contests with TR, I was sold ON TR. The MULTIPLE and
NATURAL use of the ENTER key and the NATURAL use of the ESC key where
the first big pluses I saw. I have always hated using the + key and the
insert key....
for logging and sending.
Besides the multiple use of keys, being able to put commands in the F-Key
memories is a cool feature too along with the multi use foot switch.
I also use CT/NA when contesting at other stations. I too walk away knowing
I made the correct choice in contest programs.
It does take a few contests to get familiar with TR if you are use to CT or
NA. I am
very glad I made the change.
Good Luck
de Barry / K8BK
-----Original Message-----
From: Ed (G3SQX / N0ED) <G3SQX@email.com>
To: trlog@contesting.com <trlog@contesting.com>
Date: Monday, June 26, 2000 8:13 PM
Subject: [TRLog] LONG -- Reflections on first real use of TR LOG, and a few
gripes
>
>Hello TR LOG people,
>
>I see that the posts on this reflector seem to come from TR LOG
>enthusiasts. I had hoped to become one of this august band, but it may
>not be possible. Am I am permitted to make a few observations about the
>way that TR works? I might even make a criticism or two. If you can't
>handle it, please press DELETE immediately!
>
>My local club (Mile High DX Association) entered ARRL Field Day last
>weekend, and TR was announced as the logging software of choice. Since
>I bought TR almost a year ago, but have been too busy (scared?) to try
>it, I thought I would make a real effort. I started re-reading the
>manual, and got the software going on my computer.
>
>The first thing I found was that the manual is virtually
>incomprehensible. Even though a fellow Brit is charged with making it
>seem like a real "User's Guide", I suspect he has only reached page 22.
>There is an inherent problem in writing documentation, because TR is not
>an easy program to learn, and you have to explain about 20 concepts all
>at once. Still, there has to be a better way. I consulted another TR
>fan (let's call him "Dai"), and said I could make little sense of it.
>He replied, "I believe this is because the manual is written in
>Klingon." Remember, this is from a guy who is a devotee. May I also
>suggest that the PDF format is an abomination, and almost any other
>would work better (HTML is fine with me).
>
>Having used most of the other contest logging software around, I soon
>realized that there was a steep learning curve with TR. Of course, I
>suppose I was spoiled. When I first started using CT, I carried around
>a piece of paper with half a dozen keys listed, and their usage ("F1",
>"+", etc.) After a while, I didn't need it. Even using TR with just
>the serial port connected for keying (and nothing else), I found that
>the key I was using most often was Alt-H. Unfortunately, this was not
>always helpful.
>
>TR can do a lot of things. A very large number of things! Most of them
>are things I don't want to do, and we didn't want to do them during
>Field Day. We had a very hard time finding out how to do the things we
>really DID want to do. I was pulled out of my tent at 6:30 am in a deep
>slumber by one operator, who seemed to think I was the TR expert! "How
>do I program the F3 key to send a message?" Actually, that was easy,
>although we had to it twice (once for S&P and once for Run mode). I
>couldn't help thinking that the same function was implemented in most
>other logging programs by doing Shift-F3, or whatever is the F key you
>want to program.
>
>I wanted to put a space before a CW message. It took half an hour to
>find that one out from the documentation (it's underline, not hyphen,
>apparently). We wanted to do a floppy disk backup. Only five minutes
>for that (v. good!), although the message telling us that the log had
>been backed to floppy up was completely wrong (it's obvious to any
>programmer that the floppy is "A:"). I guess I'm too old to memorize
>the whole manual now, so it would be nice to have an on-line searchable
>help document.
>
>I suppose my main gripe is with TR's "user interface" -- in particular,
>the use of the keyboard for carrying out the main program functions.
>The screen is a mess, but it's difficult to do anything about this with
>MSDOS (although SD has a very much nicer-looking logging screen).
>However, almost everything about the allocation of keys to program
>functions in TR is difficult to learn and confusing. When I think back
>to the days when I wrote MSDOS programs, I would never have dreamed of
>putting out a program with TR's user interface. I guess this sounds
>pretty blunt, but I can only report what I have found over several days
>with the manual, plus two days of actual usage.
>
>My friend Dai says that I shouldn't let myself be overwhelmed by a mere
>program, and adds, "After you had been licensed less than 3 months
>[1964] did they shove you on the key in Field Day [yes], did you run a
>pile-up on a straight key [yes], and wonder why all the old farts were
>looking at you in amazement [it was great fun!]." Yes to all of these
>things, and it was hard. I have no problem learning how to do difficult
>things, but when there is a better way, we should use it. I have no
>sympathy with the attitude that says, " I managed to learn this, and it
>took a lot of effort, so you should go through the same effort that I
>did."
>
>Because TR can do almost everything, there are going to be keys which
>make it carry out all these myriad functions. Letters and number are
>already in use, but it makes sense to represent all the other functions
>with single characters (or, at least, Ctrl and Alt characters). Of
>course, we won't remember the 60 or so possibilities in the middle of
>the night, so there are two choices: either have a comprehensive HELP
>system that will remind you; or, (as some programs do) have an
>alternative which accepts commands in the callsign field, where
>English-like words do the same thing (e.g. SOUND, FASTDUMP, etc.) Given
>this is the method of choice in TR, shouldn't Alt-H tell you anything
>you want to know? I realize that TR is very sparing of memory (good),
>but if you're desperate, you'll surely let TR scan slowly through a disk
>file for you to find out how to do something?
>
>Perhaps the main bone of contention I have is that TR is "NOT modeless."
>This is computer-speak for "TR does different things when the same key
>is depressed, depending on the circumstances." Or, to put it another
>way, "Unless you're paying REALLY close attention, TR will do something
>you don't expect each time you press the same key." Perhaps TR users
>are paying close attention at all times (sorry, I don't fall into this
>category). If you're trying to find a place to call CQ, or tuning a
>dead band for a multiplier, your mind will be otherwise engaged. My
>instinct is that you will then try to get your contest logging program
>to do your will, almost certainly without benefit of the thought
>process. If the F1 key is somehow connected in your mind with "CQ" and
>the F4 key with "send my callsign" you have a chance of doing the right
>thing. If you have to decide "switch to S&P" or "switch to Run mode"
>then press Enter, you've used too many valuable neurons. I suppose I'm
>in a minority here.
>
>I lost track in FD of the number of times I pressed ESC to stop CW
>sending, but found I had pressed it one time too many. Oh -- seem to
>have deleted a QSO, oops, now I've switched mode (I now know this can
>be turned off). Then Space appears to do several different things,
>which do not seem to be switchable off. I suppose I should have
>expected TAB to do something weird. Of course, Enter does almost
>everything (but hardly ever the thing I wanted). OK, I'm exaggerating.
>MOST of the time TR did what I thought it would. When it didn't I spent
>time off the rig trying to remember what to do to get it back to where
>it was. I'm still trying to figure out the F-key programming conundrum.
>By the way, I thought if I answered all the initial ("let's make a
>LOGCFG") questions correctly, my exchange would be created
>automatically -- not so, and (AFAICS) you have to exit TR and start
>again to do it.
>
>What am I saying? Maybe it's this: the interface devised by K1EA is
>not great, but it's not THAT bad. Progress would be made by taking it
>and improving it. K8CC did not do a very good job of this, but tried.
>CT has an overwhelming advantage: you can use it after a few minutes
>learning, CW or phone. It's impossible to say the same about TR, as our
>club found out at the weekend. Perhaps I should propose a new
>LOGCFG.DAT command:
>CT MODE SIMULATE = TRUE
>It wouldn't be perfect, but it would be a start.
>
>Well, I see I've unloaded a few grumbles. What did I like about TR?
>Several things:
>(1) It didn't crash or freeze. This is a MAJOR advantage, and makes me
>want to continue studying TR in the hope of mastering the way it works.
>(2) It does everything. No question about it. When I feel strong
>enough to join a multi-multi team again, I KNOW the best choice will be
>TR. For a single-operator, single-radio station, it's doubtful.
>(3) It sends good CW. I can change speed instantly. Great!
>(4) The support is unparalleled. Bugs seem to be fixed instantly. And
>the author/bug-fixer is a contester. Excellent!
>
>Nonetheless, the bottom line is that I'm somewhat disappointed with TR.
>For no very good reason, it takes simple functions and makes them
>complicated. Additional functionality (beyond what you can learn in ten
>minutes) requires a major investment in reading and experimenting, and
>quite a bit of knowledge of MSDOS (surely a rare commodity these days).
>I've heard it said that "anything worthwhile takes a bit of effort."
>True -- but I want my effort to go into improving my rig and putting up
>new antennas.
>
>I hope you'll accept my comments in the spirit in which they're
>intended -- that is, the experience of a newbie, who REALLY wanted to
>find that TR was wonderful. I'm still in two minds as to which program
>to use for the IOTA contest, so please try to convince me ..........
>
>73,
>
>Ed, N0ED / G3SQX
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
>Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
>Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/FAQ/trlog
Submissions: trlog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: trlog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-trlog@contesting.com
Feature Wishlist: http://web.jzap.com/n6tr/trwish.html
|