x86 is an entirely different debate... and I agree. But when you can
buy 3 Intels to 1 Alpha it boils down to economics.
I like the modular idea. But, will it work? Many developers spend
many hours building "bridges" just to connect the available
modules together. It's a whole other set of frustrations. The
problem, in the ham market, seems to be combining all the logging
(contest, DX & general) and automation functions in one package.
What WL does well, others do not. The converse is also true. No
product will ever be everything to everyone. I can think of a few
talented programmers who may benefit greatly by forming a
strategic alliance and pursuing your idea. I would expect that
products such as that would be more difficult to use. Translated - a
more limited market. Too many appliance operators wanting plug 'n
play.
Perhaps managing 8 concurrent ports is a reasonable limit. That's
a decision for Wayne. Assuming 8 is the limit, I still feel it should
not be 8 of 8 but 8 of ??? Wayne?
Bill - N1HKO
> Hmmm.....
> I guess when it comest to pushing the computer envelope, I become
> frustrated that a very poor architecture ( intel x86 ) is the dominant
> one. Why not Motorola 68K, or VAX/VMS/Alpha, x86 is very poor to
> support the type of systems we try to build with it. Oh well, Beta was
> technically better than VHS too... Dr Doi at Sony can tell you about
> that one. So, we limp along. Yes, 4 is for Rig/cw et al, the other
> choose from 1-8 anyway. I guess it may be time to ask if the contest
> logger should have such an onerous responsibility as the type of
> system you described. Maybe we need to have a lego type building block
> program as the core and the contest logger is just one of the
> elements, not the core. I say that because the variables are just too
> much to ask of that poor program ( and the programmer ) Well, so much
> for babbling, 73, Ric
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "N1HKO - Bill Fleming" <n1hko@arrl.net>
> To: "Ric Plummer" <ric@kv1w.com>
> Cc: <WriteLog@CONTESTING.COM>
> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 21:55
> Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Setup & PTT
>
>
> > Hi Ric,
> >
> > Thanks for all the quick help!
> >
> > I have to question why there would be an arbitrary limit especially
> > as low as eight? As best I can tell, what appears to be a limit of 8
> > applys to all components of WL (rigs, rotors, Packet & RTTY). The
> > limit of 4 you speak of relates, I believe, only to Rigs. However,
> > lets say you have four rigs, TNC for packet, TNC for RTTY, and two
> > rotors. Now you are up to 8. In my case, ports 3-10 are external to
> > the PC (no IRQ issues). 1 & 2 are the "native" ports. Certain
> > devices, like the UPS, have to be connected to ports 1 or 2. So,
> > that leaves me only six possible ports (3 - 8) to connect up to
> > eight possible devices. The math just doesn't work.
> >
> > As things evolve, I'm sure the maximum possible number
> > contemplated by WL will grow beyond eight. Just think about
> > amplifiers, tuners and other remote devices. Since the maximum
> > number of RS-232 ports configurable under windows is virtually (the
> > maximum I know of being tested is 256) limitless. Isn't eight a bit
> > on the low side? Each time I add ports, I add eight at a time.
> > Unless I have only two, I have ten.
> >
> > I'll be the first to admit I may be pushing the envelope. But, isn't
> > that what this hobby is all about?
> >
> > 73,
> >
> > Bill - N1HKO
> >
> >
> > > Bill,
> > > Since Writelog only really can use a max of 4, you pick the 4 of
> > > 8, why not just configure your setup so that 9 and 10 are used for
> > > non-Writelog functions. Ric KV1W
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "N1HKO - Bill Fleming" <n1hko@arrl.net>
> > > To: <WriteLog@contesting.com>
> > > Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2000 19:36
> > > Subject: Re: [WriteLog] Setup & PTT
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to all who replied. It never occurred to me to look in
> > > > INI settings for Com Ports...
> > > >
> > > > Has anyone got WL to recognize any com ports beyond 8? No
> > > > matter what I put in the INI file, anything greater than 8 gets
> > > > rewritten to 8 on all the menus and lists. Example:
> > > >
> > > > CommSlot4=9
> > > >
> > > > Slot 4 will display as Com8. The resulting line(s) written to
> > > > the INI file are all Com8. Is this a hard coded limitation? If
> > > > so, can it be changed?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Oh. This a new install for me. Just beginning to setup and
> > > > > > test. I read the writelog10doc.zip version prior to getting
> > > > > > started. I have found no reference to any such
> > > > > > configurations. Since the Dialog labels are "Com1...", I
> > > > > > took them literally. Port1 would be more intuitive...
> > > > > > Anyway, I have also checked the help file - it hasn't
> > > > > > helped.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The WriteLog.ini file has seven (7) com ports in the [PORTS]
> > > > > > section. But, there is no clear indication of how to assign
> > > > > > radios and other hardware to the ports. Could it be
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comm2Used=CW,POLL,19 ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In playing further, I have observed that the rotor list
> > > > > > under SETUP PORTS shows com1 - com8. Still missing Com 9 &
> > > > > > 10. I am finding this very confusing... Com1 - Com4 in
> > > > > > setup. Com1 - Com8 for Rotors. Com1 - Com7 in the INI file.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I need more help?
> > > >
Bill Fleming
Amateur Radio Station(s) - N1HKO, 8P9AM, PJ2/N1HKO, P4/N1HKO
ARES District Emergency Coordiantor - American Red Cross Liaison
RACES Radio Officer
Manchester, New Hampshire
P O Box 5973
Manchester, NH 03108-5973
(603) 647-4669
Mailto:n1hko@arrl.net
PGP PUBLIC KEY ID = 0x069F01F6
--
WWW: http://www.writelog.com/
Submissions: writelog@contesting.com
Administrative requests: writelog-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-writelog@contesting.com
|