I think there is a real danger in "design by community". There has to be a
moderator and one final arbiter to decide if the proposed change to hardware
or software meets the strategic intent of the design.
I think the K3 is evolving, but it is not yet a good contest radio, IMHO.
It is better for running than it is for S&P, again, IMHO. It is, however, a
great DX radio. It remains to be seen how the final product will evolve. All
I can say is, I don't want to load the new software every two weeks and have
a different radio every time I turn it on.
The problem and the inherent design crisis that occurs with SDRs is that
there are a finite number of controls that can be infinitely programmed and
reprogrammed. Adding a new feature may oftren impact another. For example,
who
decides if a feature for digital modes trumps CW or SSB features. Everybody
wants something. And, of course, everybody wants their special feature on
the top layer of the menu.
Then there's the issue of software revisions. For logging, I use a very old
version of TRLog, simply because it has the features I need and is not
overloaded with features and selections that might confuse me. So it is with
Orion I software, apparently. I've seen many posts from folks who reloaded an
older version, because they didn't like the "improvements" in a newer revision.
When you open the redesign and re-engineering of a radio to the user
community, you run the risk of making changes that may benefit a few but
satisfy
neither the larger community nor the greater design goals for the radio.
Sometimes allowing something for anybody ends up as nothing for everybody.
Paul, K5AF
>Orion II but I also have a K2/100 and a new K-3. The K-3 is still in the
>shakedown mode. New features and modified features are being regularly
>added with new firmware offered every two weeks or so. Many of the list
>suggestions have found their way into firmware mods in very short order.
>Frankly, I have yet to encounter a situation where Elecraft has stated that
>a new feature or improvement is "on the list" and has not ultimately been
>incorporated. Obviously, some features must be higher on the priority list
>than others because they may significantly impact operation of the radio and
>need to be corrected first. I have also noted incidents where a suggested
>feature has been rejected because it was impractical. I hate to be critical
>but I think your reply implied that Elecraft was being disingenuous. I
>really don't believe that's the case.
>By the way, is any firmware update for the Orion II in sight? I think the
>noise reduction still needs some work.
>Bruce-W8FU
>yqj: Referring to Elecraft here as being smart, they
>will state in public that your idea has value - "it's
>on the list", whether or not it's an actual priority.
>I'm not sure I understand how that would have benefited Ten-Tec if we had
>done the same thing. You're saying that
>acknowledging a request publicly and then not acting on it because it's not
>a priority is smart customer service?
>When we've done that in the past vis a vis the Orion and other radios we've
>later regretted it.
>73
>Scott Robbins
>W4PA
_______________________________________________
**************Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with
Tyler Florence" on AOL Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4&?NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
_______________________________________________
TenTec mailing list
TenTec@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|