Hi Patrick I think the GUI is great . I have no trouble using it. Keep up the good work !
73 de LA5VNA Steinar Patrick Lindecker skrev: > > Hello Frank and all, > > I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails. > > However thanks to all who present, in a better way that I could do it, > this program. > > >Here's a screenshot of what I get to stare at for hours on end: > http://evokefrank.googlepages.com/psk31qso > <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... > > You are right. It is very nice and Simon is talented. > But nobody oblige you to use a program. You can simply uninstall it > and that's all. > It reminds me this saying "Vouloir le beurre, l'argent du beurre et la > crémière" which means "to want the butter, the money of the butter and > the lady who sells the butter". > > 73 > Patrick > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Tooner <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com> > *Sent:* Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM > *Subject:* [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto: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 > <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! ;) > > 73. Frank K2NCC > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/ > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/> > >
