I gave it a try for the first time about a year ago. It was very confusing for a first time user. Rather then have the main screen loaded with all the modes I think it would be a lot better the have a drop down under a mode button with settings.
But that just me. I deleted it from the system and have not tried again since. John, W0JAB At 09:23 PM 1/30/2008, you wrote: >--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> MultiPSK has a lot more in it than just the ALE Frank. > >That's cool, and I can appreciate that. I've played with most of the >common digital modes software and have to say MultiPSK has a lot of >'meat' to it. However, as a casual HF digital modes user, and my >particular setup, MultiPSK doesn't do anything more for me than what >I'm using. > >> ... rather than wasting it on making the program look like something >Microsoft developed. > >True, but there's something to be said about having a clean layout. > >Here's a screenshot of what I get to stare at for hours on end: >http://evokefrank.googlepages.com/psk31qso > >Notice the full screen waterfall (with spectrum analysis), the quick >access to other components of a QSO like instant logging, and the >ability to separate the program windows for optimal layouts. There's >plenty more, but that can be discovered (detailed signal analysis, >etc.) by the more industrious. Not that this is a feature comparison, >as much as a visual representation. > >If a user unfamiliar with either program compared the two, which do >you think would be more appealing? The difference in 'abilities' is >minor for all most the most active hams. Maybe even then. > >Also, if one wants the full features of MultiPSK (like the spectrum >analyzer or oscilloscope) you'll have to fork up $45.00). > >> It's kinda like homebrewing a qrp radio... > >True, as the creator of the QRP rig. As a hand-me-down it might not >hold the same feelings. > >I think it's more like the hard-core DOS or CW guys that refuse >to let go of to what they're accustomed. Technology requires that >one adapts often and adapts quickly. There are always some drawback >to letting go of what worked for so long, but the benefits usually >(or eventually) outweigh the disadvantages. Digital TV isn't as good >as analog, but now I have 400 channels of junk instead of six! 8-) > >> Who cares what it looks like it's how well it does the job > >There's a lot to be said for looks and ease-of-use! I'd much rather >have the best of both worlds > >Meanwhile, what 'job' does MultiPSK do for you personally? Or, if >someone else wants to pipe in with their answer. > >This shouldn't turn into a Fords-vs-Chevys battle, but I am interested >in the exchange of opinions and information. I reserve the right to >adapt and change my mind with new information! ;)
