[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Paul]

> Paul, I believe message #26409 answered your question?
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26409
> 
> Pardon me if I'm wrong, as it was just a quick glance.
> 
> Frank, K2NCC

Thank you Frank. I did miss that. It tells me the configuration file
will not be overwritten which implies there is an "installer" action
going on instead of SelectAll Copy/Paste. It was suggested to ask in
the MultiPSK news group and I had long ago. When I saw all the MPSK
users here I thought I'd try the quick question again.

I'll download 4.7 and go though the install/update process again.
73,
Paul

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Danny Douglas]

I would certainly agree to that.  I am not a new user of digital or logging
software, having used several over the past decade, but every time I attempt
to go to Multipsk, I am put off by just too much on the screen at one time.
A tabbing system would certainly be one better way.  I particularly like the
way the the DXLab suite handles the different programs and you can pick and
choose exactly what you do want on the screen.  Its only drawback is it just
doesnt have the capbility of running all the modes that MultiPsk or evn MixW
has. When I wish to use a differnt mode, like those, I use MixW in
conjunciton with DXLabs DXKeeper logging program.  You can also use MultiPsk
with DXKeeper (they say) but I simply dont have the time and do not want to
put in the effort to use MultiPsk with its very confusing screen.



Danny Douglas
N7DC
ex WN5QMX ET2US WA5UKR ET3USA
SV0WPP VS6DD N7DC/YV5 G5CTB
All 2 years or more (except Novice)
Pls QSL direct, buro, or LOTW preferred,
I Do not use, but as a courtesy do upload to eQSL for
those who do.

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Much!!!
> 
> Wow! all these 4.7 Multipsk posts after I asked my question - and no
> answer. So I'll try again.

Paul, I believe message #26409 answered your question?

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/26409

Pardon me if I'm wrong, as it was just a quick glance.

Frank, K2NCC

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Paul]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks Much!!!

Wow! all these 4.7 Multipsk posts after I asked my question - and no
answer. So I'll try again.

What is the best way to install the update over a pre-existing
registered version.  DXLab is slick. You just click update from the
launcher and it finds the new version and installs it over the old.

with HRD it's pretty much the same thing. Double click the downloaded
file and it installs over the old. Same with DXSoft's software.

I recall with Multipsk, getting a file that had to be expanded. But
after the files were expanded (in a temp folder?) it wasn't clear if
then should be moved to the folder of the original install of if there
was a Setup type icon that needed launching to handle the rest of it.
And if there isn't, wouldn't moving all those new files wipe out
existing preferences and license registration files.

Please - a step by step on the best way to update this very popular
digital mode program?

Thank you and 73,
Paul

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Les Warriner]

Thanks Much!!!

At 04:45 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote:

On Jan 31, 2008 6:59 PM, Les Warriner 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hey Patrick!! Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm? Appreciate!!

Les, the main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR:
http://multipsk.eqth.info/index.html 
(click on "United States Download

Site #1").

--
JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx)
Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 
1/28/2008 10:59 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Rick Johnson]

Touche!! Patrick. I enjoy using your program.

Rick W3BI



- Original Message 
From: Patrick Lindecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00:03 PM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

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
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 
To: digitalradio@ yahoogroups. com 
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK


--- 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! ;)

73. Frank K2NCC
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/radiointer ference/





  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[JT Croteau]

Nice post Jose.

I must also add that the algorithms written by Patrick are some of the
most sophisticated I have ever seen for software based audio decoding.
 His A1A decoder is one of the best I have ever used.

-- 
JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx)
Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[JT Croteau]

On Jan 31, 2008 6:59 PM, Les Warriner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>  Hey Patrick!!  Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm?  Appreciate!!

Les, the main mirror site is Earl's, N8KBR:
http://multipsk.eqth.info/index.html (click on "United States Download
Site #1").

-- 
JT Croteau, N1ESE - Manchester, NH (FN42gx)
Contest Manager, TARA Skirmish

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tim N9PUZ]

I began using MultiPSK a few months ago when Sholto was looking for 
help with some propagation monitoring on 30 meters. He has a program 
that works in conjunction with MultiPSK to automatically post spots on 
. Prior to trying and 
registering MultiPSK I had almost always used a registered copy of MixW.

The performance of MultiPSK in the modes I've tried is very good. I 
especially like the panoramic reception as it makes it easy to "copy 
the mail" while I'm in the shack reading or working on other projects.

The user interface for MultiPSK is very busy/cluttered in my opinion. 
An alternative I think might work well would be a tabbed system where 
each mode had its own tab and you only saw controls and displays for 
the mode you had selected. I think this might also make new additions 
easier because you would add a new tab vs. deciding where to squeeze 
in the new mode/button/slider.

My suspicion is that people new to MultiPSK may be put off because of 
the learning curve. There is a LOT there to figure out for a new user 
that has not been with it as it has evolved. Couple that with a 
person's natural tendency to be comfortable with the old program they 
used no matter what new modes and features it doesn't have and you 
have a powerful tool that some people will just not put forth the 
effort to learn. That's not a bad thing, it's just a choice they make. 
Remember, it's a hobby. Hobbies are supposed to be enjoyable!

73,

Tim, N9PUZ


Tooner wrote:

> I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent
> post of "Here's a rundown...".  What I haven't seen a reply that
> answers the original question of "Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might
> like offer why they use it?".  If it's the unique modes it offers,
> what modes have you  successfully used?  If it's the layout, what do
> you like about it compared to others?

> 73. Frank K2NCC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Les Warriner]

Hey Patrick!!  Cud u give me the URL: to download this pgm?  Appreciate!!
73  Les

At 02:05 PM 1/31/2008, you wrote:


Frank,

I will see if I can find this on a Vista computer.

One other solution would be to see what happens with a test program 
(with a lot of flags).


If you are interested, PSE send me a mail to 
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>[EMAIL PROTECTED]


73
Patrick



- Original Message -
From: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Tooner
To: <mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:53 PM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

--- In 
<mailto:digitalradio@yahoogroups.com>digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, 
"Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

wrote:
>
> Hello Frank,
>
> >Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent
each time you start it?

Every time I start it.

f


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.14/1247 - Release Date: 
1/28/2008 10:59 AM

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Patrick Lindecker]

Frank,

I will see if I can find this on a Vista computer.

One other solution would be to see what happens with a test program (with a lot 
of flags).

If you are interested, PSE send me a mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

73
Patrick



  - Original Message - 
  From: Tooner 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:53 PM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK


  --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
  wrote:
  >
  > Hello Frank,
  > 
  > >Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
  > Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent
  each time you start it?

  Every time I start it.

  f



   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[wb2jep]

Hi Patrick,

I agree. You do an awesome job. Thank you so much for your hard work on our 
behalf!

73

Al WB2JEP

-- Original message -- 
From: "Demetre Valaris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Frank and all,
> 
> I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails.

Hi Patrick,

I find the GUI in MULTIPSK the best of all. It looks like a DIGITAL
MODEM and I can go to any mode I want with a single click. I think
this is the best GUI I have ever seen on any soundcard DIGITAL MODE
program.

Don't take any notice of all this whining. What really matters most is
the way this program decodes the various modes.

73 de Demetre SV1UY


 

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

Wow.  This totally went off-track from the original spirit of the posts.

It's turned into mostly likes/dislikes versus what people are
actually *doing* with each program.

Thanks to those who answered, particularly to the developers who's
time is valued.

What do you say we call this a dead horse and move on?

73. Frank K2NCC

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Demetre Valaris]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Frank and all,
> 
> I don't think Multipsk deserves all these mails.

Hi Patrick,

I find the GUI in MULTIPSK the best of all. It looks like a DIGITAL
MODEM and I can go to any mode I want with a single click. I think
this is the best GUI I have ever seen on any soundcard DIGITAL MODE
program.

Don't take any notice of all this whining. What really matters most is
the way this program decodes the various modes.

73 de Demetre SV1UY

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Steinar Aanesland]

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/>
>
>  

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Dave Bernstein]

There are bridges that allow direct logging from MixW and DM780 to 
DXKeeper. MultiPSK interoperates directly with DXLab without the need 
for a bridge application, and works with SpotCollector as well as 
with DXKeeper and Commander.

   73,

 Dave, AA6YQ

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi Frank,
> 
> The reason that many of us use Multipsk is because it really is the 
only 
> available program of its kind. No other program has all those modes 
> available in one program at any price. In addition, some of the 
modes 
> are specific to Multipsk and not available anywhere else. So if you 
want 
> to use these modes, you must use Multipsk even if there might be 
other 
> things about the program that you dislike. This is particularly 
true of 
> the FAE modes, the RSID system, and the constant development by 
Patrick. 
> No other developer has invented so many modes or tweaked existing 
modes.
> 
> Otherwise, it really is a Fords vs Chevy thing (as we might say 
here in 
> the U.S.:)  But even there, the answer is very easy as Chevy's are 
> almost always better:)
> 
> As time goes on, there will be more choices. The Ham Radio Deluxe 
> Program, which used to be limited to a PSK31 module, now has a full 
> blown digital add on (Digital Master 780) which is superior from an 
> interface and operational standpoint even when compared to programs 
that 
> cost money. It does seem to require some substantial computer power.
> 
> The flDigi (Linux) and VBDigi (Windows) programs along with flarq 
to 
> make up the NBEMS system has seen the addition of many of the most 
> commonly used modes and I can recommend this package.
> 
> If you are a DXer or contester, you may want to stay with one 
program 
> and really become proficient with its use. The issue of logging is 
also 
> a concern since having many different programs and combining logs 
is not 
> that easy. Multipsk has another feature that provides 
interoperability 
> with DXLab DX Keeper logging module, via the DXLab Commander 
module. For 
> those who use the ARRL LoTW this is likely important as I am not 
sure 
> how many other digital programs can do this.
> 
>  From a personal perspective, my long term goal is to move at least 
some 
> of my computing to Linux, not so much because I like Linux, but 
because 
> MS has made so many bad decisions with their current OS and the 
> explosive situation that is going to continue happening in 
developing 
> countries and other countires outside the U.S. with Linux adoption.
> 
> While I have not really considered reloading the Vista OS again 
using 
> the vLite program, (Vista is the easiest OS I have ever reloaded), 
I am 
> impressed that some of the top programming people at Microsoft have 
> admitted that Vista is bloated and Windows 7 is planned to have a 
very 
> big change in drastically slimming down. It appears that they will 
ask, 
> or are already asking programmers to think differently and use a 
> stripped down version of the new OS. However, this new OS is not 
planned 
> until 2010 so that likely really means 2015 or beyond.
> 
> Because the world is moving toward free and open software, 
including the 
> OS, Linux or something evolving from it is very likely in the long 
term. 
> That means that if you move some of your applications to the new 
OS, and 
> the programs you now use can not follow as native mode 
applications, you 
> must move to new ones. That is why almost all the programs my wife 
and I 
> use have moved or are moving toward open source/cross platform as 
much 
> as we can. We are probably too old really to be overly concerned, 
but 
> may we have another 10 or 20 years, you never know.
> 
> The two stumbling blocks for me
> 
> - the much better visual rendering that Vista does on my equipment, 
> which is slightly better than XP and much better than Linux at this 
time.
> 
> - the access to ham radio programs that are only available on MS 
Windows 
> at this time.
> 
> So for now I am going to primarily use the programs that have the 
modes 
> I want to use, or can legally use. If they become available on 
Linux as 
> a native mode someday, then that could change.
> 
> At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes 
in one 
> program and that is only available on MS Windows.
> 
> 73,
> 
> Rick, KV9U
> 
> 
> Tooner wrote:
> >
> > I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's 
excellent
> > post of "Here's a rundown...".  What I haven't seen a reply that
> > answers the original question of "Any big fans of MULTIPSK that 
might
> > like offer why they use it?".  If it's the unique modes it offers,
> > what modes have you  successfully used?  If it's the layout, what 
do
> > you like about it compared to others?
> >
> > Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys.  We all have our 
tastes.  I
> > was trying to find out what others like.
> >
> > I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity.  It 

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hello Frank,
> 
> >Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent
each time you start it?

Every time I start it.

f

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Rick]

Hi Frank,

The reason that many of us use Multipsk is because it really is the only 
available program of its kind. No other program has all those modes 
available in one program at any price. In addition, some of the modes 
are specific to Multipsk and not available anywhere else. So if you want 
to use these modes, you must use Multipsk even if there might be other 
things about the program that you dislike. This is particularly true of 
the FAE modes, the RSID system, and the constant development by Patrick. 
No other developer has invented so many modes or tweaked existing modes.

Otherwise, it really is a Fords vs Chevy thing (as we might say here in 
the U.S.:)  But even there, the answer is very easy as Chevy's are 
almost always better:)

As time goes on, there will be more choices. The Ham Radio Deluxe 
Program, which used to be limited to a PSK31 module, now has a full 
blown digital add on (Digital Master 780) which is superior from an 
interface and operational standpoint even when compared to programs that 
cost money. It does seem to require some substantial computer power.

The flDigi (Linux) and VBDigi (Windows) programs along with flarq to 
make up the NBEMS system has seen the addition of many of the most 
commonly used modes and I can recommend this package.

If you are a DXer or contester, you may want to stay with one program 
and really become proficient with its use. The issue of logging is also 
a concern since having many different programs and combining logs is not 
that easy. Multipsk has another feature that provides interoperability 
with DXLab DX Keeper logging module, via the DXLab Commander module. For 
those who use the ARRL LoTW this is likely important as I am not sure 
how many other digital programs can do this.

 From a personal perspective, my long term goal is to move at least some 
of my computing to Linux, not so much because I like Linux, but because 
MS has made so many bad decisions with their current OS and the 
explosive situation that is going to continue happening in developing 
countries and other countires outside the U.S. with Linux adoption.

While I have not really considered reloading the Vista OS again using 
the vLite program, (Vista is the easiest OS I have ever reloaded), I am 
impressed that some of the top programming people at Microsoft have 
admitted that Vista is bloated and Windows 7 is planned to have a very 
big change in drastically slimming down. It appears that they will ask, 
or are already asking programmers to think differently and use a 
stripped down version of the new OS. However, this new OS is not planned 
until 2010 so that likely really means 2015 or beyond.

Because the world is moving toward free and open software, including the 
OS, Linux or something evolving from it is very likely in the long term. 
That means that if you move some of your applications to the new OS, and 
the programs you now use can not follow as native mode applications, you 
must move to new ones. That is why almost all the programs my wife and I 
use have moved or are moving toward open source/cross platform as much 
as we can. We are probably too old really to be overly concerned, but 
may we have another 10 or 20 years, you never know.

The two stumbling blocks for me

- the much better visual rendering that Vista does on my equipment, 
which is slightly better than XP and much better than Linux at this time.

- the access to ham radio programs that are only available on MS Windows 
at this time.

So for now I am going to primarily use the programs that have the modes 
I want to use, or can legally use. If they become available on Linux as 
a native mode someday, then that could change.

At this time only Multipsk has almost all of the sound card modes in one 
program and that is only available on MS Windows.

73,

Rick, KV9U


Tooner wrote:
>
> I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent
> post of "Here's a rundown...".  What I haven't seen a reply that
> answers the original question of "Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might
> like offer why they use it?".  If it's the unique modes it offers,
> what modes have you  successfully used?  If it's the layout, what do
> you like about it compared to others?
>
> Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys.  We all have our tastes.  I
> was trying to find out what others like.
>
> I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity.  It wasn't
> meant to devalue as it was to raise awareness.  If only my own.
>
> 73. Frank K2NCC
>
>   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Patrick Lindecker]

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
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 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:23 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK


  --- 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! ;)

  73. Frank K2NCC
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/



   

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Frank,

>Windows - No Disk Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
Did you have this problem at the second starting? Or is it permanent each time 
you start it?

>but still kinda clunky and cluttered. 
You see it cluttered, I see it in perfect order.  Here is the way I see things:

"
This GUI corresponds to what I need i.e.:
* not to waste time in searching the wished command or to switch of mode or 
sub-mode
 (minimum of menus, maximum of buttons, panel of modes...),
* always the maximum of information directly available on the screen (many 
hints,
  contextual help with right click, QRGs, actual configuration...).
"

73
Patrick





  - Original Message - 
  From: Tooner 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:57 AM
  Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK


  MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:

  "Windows - No Disk
  Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
  ...
  Cancel, Try Again, Continue"

  Selecting either will still pull up the program. Seems to work fine.

  Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
  know if you see anything similar.

  Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
  but still kinda clunky and cluttered. You can tell the same author
  designed the web-site.

  Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it? I'm
  guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?

  Frank, K2NCC



   

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[cesco12342000]

> Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
> guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?

I have made the test of running multipsk in parallel with winpsk and 
other psk31 software. The programs were set up to decode the same 
signals on 40m. Then i did compare the decoding success. Multipsk was 
clearly the winner. 

Im a multipsk fan !

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Jose A. Amador]

Tooner wrote:

> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
> wrote:
> 
>> ... but what it does and how it does.
>> ... And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL
>> ... as a peek at its specs will show you.
> 
> How about telling us what that 'stuff' is, as you are more familiar
> than I?  Specifics would be nice.
> 
>> It is not the first time that Vista FAILS with an otherwise working 
>> software.
> 
> True, but the applications need to keep up with the operating system,
> not the other-way-around.  That's one of the reasons Windows has so
> many issues, the demand for backwards compatibility.  If Microsoft
> would just start over, from scratch, and offer no recourse for older
> apps, then we'd have an O/S closer to what a modern PC can really do.

Yes, the 640 kB of RAM "original sin", the 528 MB HD limit...etc.

> 20 years ago, that would be the kiss-of-death for a company.  But as
> ingrained as Windows O/S is, I imagine it would hardly dent their
> pocketbook.  Anyway, we'll be booting to the Internet before long and
> what operating system your computer will run will be a moot point.

It depends on where you are. I have no Internet at home, and we have a 
"bastillized" proxy at work with just the imprescindible ports open.

Here at home, it is much easier to sync my PC using Clock tuned to CHU, 
thanks to Patrick, who accepted my suggestion and it is a superb way to
sync my PC to UTC. CHU has an almost bulletproof protocol in its time 
packets, far better than WWV, and still better than WWVB here.

Of course, that is my specific situation, and every case may be 
different. I used DOS until 1998, then jumped to Linux in a very 
resource deprived 486, and later began using Win98 and Linux in a dual 
boot Pentium. I still keep many of my old DOS programs, and quiet a few 
still work under XP or DOSEMU on Linux. Here, it is not easy to keep up 
with hardware, as you may already know. There, is so far, no NEED for 
Vista, as XP or other OS's may do well too.

Windows has had a bad influence on the Linux world. What was an 
extremely light OS has become quite heavy too when using a GUI, 
specially with KDE.

> Meanwhile, I can still do many things in seconds that takes even a
> skilled operator quite a bit longer in a Linux box.  (For instance,
> try setting up dual monitors in Linux!)

That is another specific situation...

> Yes, Windows isn't the most stable operating system.  It is however,
> the most usable for the masses.  No matter how skilled you are at your
> preferred O/S, you'll more likely sit down to a Windows PC vs any
> other flavor.  Except maybe at your personal station/s.

Like everything else in this world, everything has its pros and its 
cons...I will not hesitate to use Linux for a server...forget about 
service packs, and antivirus. To me, those are the two most burdensome 
activities to keep a server going. And it seems, so far, that it is 
preferable to migrate a server to another machine rather than upgrading 
a live server. Generally, a good server dies when its hardware dies.

I write from a dual boot machine. I used to run a packet BBS, and Linux 
is better for that, no doubt. It is also easier for remote 
administration, on a bandwidth restricted link.

> Anyway, that's not really the point here.  I'm just trying to nail
> someone down with specifics of what MultiPSK offers that would make
> someone reconsider what they're currently using.

Well, one of the most useful features of MultiPSK is its panoramic 
decoders. I have a vague memory that Digipan does it too, but I have not 
used Digipan in ages...

Usually I would like to have some more free time, and I work a lot from 
home...it is easier than the hectic environment in my University. I can 
be working in a new presentation with MultiPSK working in the background 
  and check periodically if a friend or a needed DX pops up.

> Again, no one has given specifics yet to what MultiPSK does better
> than other digital software?  For the most common modes, it translates
> about as well as any other.  What, besides the different modes
> available and costs, keeps one a die-hard MultiPSK fan?

Well, Sholto has done an extensive description, and I use MultiPSK 
mostly for PSK and Olivia, and sometimes, exceptionally, use one of the 
not so common modes. I have used Voice ocassionally on semi local QSO's 
on 40 meters, and it works very well, far better print than PSK or RTTY, 
while being slightly faster than Olivia.

(Nevertheless, I keep an old version of Mix for decoding some of the 
weird combinations of Olivia that Multipsk does not cover. But I have 
not used it recently...)

I have used its oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer to capture waveforms 
and signals from the real life to include in my work, ocassionally. A 
real voice waveform is so peculiar that I like my students to take that 
into account when they have to deal with modulators.

Or when evaluating why I had so many difficultie

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[John Bradley]

ahh  I am of "that certain age" but UI could also apply to me as
(u)n(i)tiated  hi hi  

tnx Simon

 

John

VE5MU

 

User Interface, also known as GUI (Graphical User Interface) when compared
with an old VT-100 type terminal interface or even a teletype for those of a
'certain age'.

 

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 

From: John Bradley   

 

qu'est-ce que  "UI"?

 

 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Simon Brown]

User Interface, also known as GUI (Graphical User Interface) when compared with 
an old VT-100 type terminal interface or even a teletype for those of a 
'certain age'.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV
  - Original Message - 
  From: John Bradley 


  qu'est-ce que  "UI"?

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[John Bradley]

qu'est-ce que  "UI"?

 

John

VE5MU

 

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:00 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

 

To be able to provide the remarkable number of modes in MultiPSK *and* have 
a UI conforming to the Windows usability guidelines is verging on the 
impossible, especially once you factor in supporting users and maintaining 
websites.

IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick for the work he 
does no matter how appealing the UI may be.

To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four 
programmers; herding cats would be easier.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Tooner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:defaultprofile%40gmail.com>
>

> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> , Kevin O'Rorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
wrote:
>
>>Those who complain about the UI really need to go away and use
> another Program.
>
> Sorry Kevin, in this country, our opinions are equal. In theory at
> least. "Those who complain.." don't just get up and leave we
> bitch about it until someone fixes it!

 

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick

No doubt.  There's no complaint in providing the service, as each
programmer has given many of us new things to try, and the ability to
work with what we previously might not have been able.

I understand the specifications, as also found in Sholto's excellent
post of "Here's a rundown...".  What I haven't seen a reply that
answers the original question of "Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might
like offer why they use it?".  If it's the unique modes it offers,
what modes have you  successfully used?  If it's the layout, what do
you like about it compared to others?

Again, this wasn't about Fords-vs-Chevys.  We all have our tastes.  I
was trying to find out what others like.

I hope I didn't offend anyone in this pursuit of curiosity.  It wasn't
meant to devalue as it was to raise awareness.  If only my own.

73. Frank K2NCC

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Simon Brown]

To do everything users want could easily take several years at 60 hours a 
week plus the associated costs which are not inconsiderable.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Simon Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four
> programmers; herding cats would be easier.
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Simon Brown]

To be able to provide the remarkable number of modes in MultiPSK *and* have 
a UI conforming to the Windows usability guidelines is verging on the 
impossible, especially once you factor in supporting users and maintaining 
websites.

IMO the user community should be very grateful to Patrick for the work he 
does no matter how appealing the UI may be.

To provide the ultimate software would require a team of three or four 
programmers; herding cats would be easier.

Simon Brown, HB9DRV

- Original Message - 
From: "Tooner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Rorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Those who complain about the UI really need to go away and use
> another Program.
>
> Sorry Kevin, in this country, our opinions are equal.  In theory at
> least.  "Those who complain.." don't just get up and leave we
> bitch about it until someone fixes it!

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Sholto Fisher]

Frank,

Here's a rundown of some of the more interesting and maybe offbeat 
things you can do with MultiPSK that you can't do in other programs:

Weak signal modes
-

There are a variety of interesting modes suitable for weak signal/QRP 
work. These include a modified version of PSK10. In tests with a channel 
simulator I have had decode down to -20db S/N. Of course in the real 
world Doppler would probably limit this to around -18dB S/N.

PSKAM10, very slow but can work even further into the noise.

"VOICE" an adapted weak signal mode derived from Olivia that is only 
168Hz wide. Seems better than Olivia 8/250 and faster too. This mode 
also has an audio readout of the character using a voice synthesizer if 
desired (the idea being invented for blind hams).

Automatic ID


MultiPSK can send a waterfall picture (actually a type of Hellschreiber) 
with the name of the mode before transmission. It's possible to see this 
message in just about any other type of program running a waterfall.

RS-ID. Automatic mode recognition and precise frequency tuning. This is 
another type of ID that is a unique Reed-Solomon MFSK sequence that is 
transmitted before the main transmission and allows the remote copy of 
MultiPSK (or PocketDigi now) to home in and choose the right mode 
automatically. This works down to around -14dB s/n and is extremely useful!

Soundcard based ARQ
---

MIL-STD-188-141A implementations in normal wide bandwidth or narrow 
400Hz bandwidth providing a Fast Acknowledged Exchange ARQ mode for 
semi-duplex QSO's or transferring emails & files. The ALE400 mode as you 
probably know appears to be a very effective mode for error free QSO's.

PAX/PAX-2 similar idea but based on AX25 packet structure and features. 
MFSK modulation.

Regular AX25 packet radio. Not a dumb terminal but a full implementation 
including an autoresponder, APRS (RX & TX) and messaging facility.


Commercial Modes

Of interest to SWL's mainly perhaps.

Decoding of DTMF, HF FAX (including false coloring for satellite 
pictures), GMDSS transmissions, VHF ACARS, SYNOP/SHIP messages and 
various other formats.


Panoramic Decoders
--
Decode up to 23 different PSK31, RTTY or CW signals simultaneously.


PC Clock Synchronization

Synchronize your PC clock to WWV, CHU etc in real time.


Experimental Picture Transmission
-
Using either narrowband MFSK16 SSTV or a simple digital transmission 
method in various modes. Probably not that useful but fun to try out.


Filters
---
Various DSP filters for experimentation including a Binaural CW filter.


Wide variety of modes
-
Many modes not found in other software.


Miscellaneous
-

Spectrum Analyzer
Oscilloscope
Signal analysis
Works with SDR and DSB receivers
TCP/IP control
TCP/IP POP3 & SMTP functions for working with your mail program
Programming facility - simple language for special applications.


Really there is so much in this program to have fun with! I am sure I 
have not covered everything in this list.

73, Sholto KE7HPV.





Tooner wrote:
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> For me personally MultiPSK allows me to enjoy ham radio my way. I like 
>> to experiment and be on the edge of new digimode technology and 
>> concepts. The learning curve keeps my mind sharp.
> 
> I can appreciate that!  Simon, with HRD, is similar in his approaches.
>  Good support, constant development and new modes, and takes into
> consideration user opinions.  He's added many features based upon for
> what a forum like this cheers.
> 
> Meanwhile, as a digimode fan, be sure to check out Roland Prosch's
> "Technical Handbook for Radio Monitoring".  It's a book with the best
> coverage of digital modes I've ever seen.  Introduced me to HUNDREDS
> of digital modes I've never know.  Then again, I've only been a ham
> for a short while!  8)
> 
> What are some of your favorite, less common modes Sholto?
> 
> Frank, K2NCC
> 
> 

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Kevin O'Rorke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Those who complain about the UI really need to go away and use
another Program.

Sorry Kevin, in this country, our opinions are equal.  In theory at
least.  "Those who complain.." don't just get up and leave we
bitch about it until someone fixes it!

8)

> ... as it has all the other digital programs and more.

What part of "and more" do you use most Kevin?

Frank, K2NCC

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Sholto Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> For me personally MultiPSK allows me to enjoy ham radio my way. I like 
> to experiment and be on the edge of new digimode technology and 
> concepts. The learning curve keeps my mind sharp.

I can appreciate that!  Simon, with HRD, is similar in his approaches.
 Good support, constant development and new modes, and takes into
consideration user opinions.  He's added many features based upon for
what a forum like this cheers.

Meanwhile, as a digimode fan, be sure to check out Roland Prosch's
"Technical Handbook for Radio Monitoring".  It's a book with the best
coverage of digital modes I've ever seen.  Introduced me to HUNDREDS
of digital modes I've never know.  Then again, I've only been a ham
for a short while!  8)

What are some of your favorite, less common modes Sholto?

Frank, K2NCC

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> ... but what it does and how it does.
> ... And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL
> ... as a peek at its specs will show you.

How about telling us what that 'stuff' is, as you are more familiar
than I?  Specifics would be nice.

> It is not the first time that Vista FAILS with an otherwise working 
> software.

True, but the applications need to keep up with the operating system,
not the other-way-around.  That's one of the reasons Windows has so
many issues, the demand for backwards compatibility.  If Microsoft
would just start over, from scratch, and offer no recourse for older
apps, then we'd have an O/S closer to what a modern PC can really do.

20 years ago, that would be the kiss-of-death for a company.  But as
ingrained as Windows O/S is, I imagine it would hardly dent their
pocketbook.  Anyway, we'll be booting to the Internet before long and
what operating system your computer will run will be a moot point.

Meanwhile, I can still do many things in seconds that takes even a
skilled operator quite a bit longer in a Linux box.  (For instance,
try setting up dual monitors in Linux!)

Yes, Windows isn't the most stable operating system.  It is however,
the most usable for the masses.  No matter how skilled you are at your
preferred O/S, you'll more likely sit down to a Windows PC vs any
other flavor.  Except maybe at your personal station/s.

Anyway, that's not really the point here.  I'm just trying to nail
someone down with specifics of what MultiPSK offers that would make
someone reconsider what they're currently using.

> changing the car controls in a new car model, which requires a new
> kind of highways.

Keeping to the analogy: Besides looking funny, you'd be far behind if
you relied on a freeway when the rest of us are driving hovercrafts!

> Can you correctly guess now what is flawed?

I doubt it's a flaw in strictest sense.  Just a mis-translation.  None
of the other digital apps gave an error using the same O/S.

> Beauty is on the eye of the beholder. And it does not tell the whole
truth.

No doubt.  But layout counts towards usability.  I prefer my old boat
anchor due to it's signal quality and suburb reception.  A newer radio
would look nice, but offers little towards the two most important
things: TX and RX!

Again, no one has given specifics yet to what MultiPSK does better
than other digital software?  For the most common modes, it translates
about as well as any other.  What, besides the different modes
available and costs, keeps one a die-hard MultiPSK fan?


Frank, K2NCC


Life is too short for CW, QRP and DOS!

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Sholto Fisher]

For me personally MultiPSK allows me to enjoy ham radio my way. I like 
to experiment and be on the edge of new digimode technology and 
concepts. The learning curve keeps my mind sharp. I can also talk to 
Patrick as a fellow amateur and suggest things and he takes the time and 
courtesy to address every point I have ever put to him. Some of my ideas 
end up in MultiPSK too.

I have a registered version of MultiPSK and it was well worth the money. 
Fantastic deal really if you consider what I ended up with in the 3+ 
years I have been using it.

But I do admit I am still a dyed-in-the-wool CW guy and love nothing 
more than to turn off the computers (including the old Pentium 200 
running DOS) and use a straight key with my QRP radios to my homemade 
dipoles. This, just like mucking around with MultiPSK, feels like real 
radio to me.

73, Sholto  KE7HPV.




Tooner 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!  ;)
> 
> 
> 73.  Frank K2NCC
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/
> 
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Jose A. Amador]

Tooner wrote:

> MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:
> 
> "Windows - No Disk
> Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> ...
> Cancel, Try Again, Continue"
> 
> Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.
> 
> Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
> know if you see anything similar.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
> but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
> designed the web-site.
> 
> Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
> guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?
> 
> Frank, K2NCC

Well, your guessing is misleading you. For me, the most important part 
of a program of its kind is not the eye candy, but what it does and how 
it does. And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL, and is among the 
pioneers in more than one front. It is an innovative  communications 
program that is useful in many modes, as a peek at its specs will show you.

It is not the first time that Vista FAILS with an otherwise working 
software. The list of Vista shortcomings is long, starting with an 
excessively greedy hardware requirement, and the requirement that the 
software it runs be rewritten according to its requirements. It is like
changing the car controls in a new car model, which requires a new kind 
of highways.

MultiPSK has worked well with XP, Win2000 and I used the previous 
versions on my old Win98 and now retired PC. Also works well under Linux 
with Wine.

Can you correctly guess now what is flawed?

Beauty is on the eye of the beholder. And it does not tell the whole truth.

73,

Jose, CO2JA



__

Participe en Universidad 2008.
11 al 15 de febrero del 2008.
Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba
http://www.universidad2008.cu

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[John Becker, WØJAB]

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!  ;)

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

--- 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!  ;)


73.  Frank K2NCC
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiointerference/

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Rick]

Hi Frank,

I have had older versions in 32 bit Vista with similar error messages 
but it seemed to work. I normally have been staying with my WinXP box 
since I have the sound card and USB ports connected to that computer and 
moving them back and forth is not trivial. Lately, with version 4.6 I 
don't seem to have this but right now I don't have USB ports connected 
to the rig/interface so maybe that makes a difference.

For Chip64, which I once thought was no longer used, but have found that 
some digital nets use the software, especially because it seems to 
perform well against lightning static, I would have to recommend Nino's 
program. The digital group in Virginia says that it works the best in 
decoding.

Patrick has been the most inventive of any of the amateur radio software 
digital program developers. We have mentioned to him about the interface 
but he prefers to have it this way. He is willing to work with other 
amazing software developers such as Dave Berstein and interoperate with 
the DXLab suite. Especially rig control such as the CI-V.

My ideal would be to have a simpler interface, especially if I wish to 
"sell" digital modes to others for such things as emergency use. I find 
that I have been often using software that makes up the NBEMS program 
now that it was ported to Windows with VBdigi, and is the only cross 
platform Windows/Linux program of its type. The interface is not pretty 
either, but very functional and of course not as cluttered since it only 
has a few basic modes plus the ability to ARQ with the flarq program.

The main reason for using Multipsk for me now has been the superb FAE 
400 mode. No other mode has those features and at the same time has 
memory ARQ. Now if we could just get more hams to use it.

73,

Rick, KV9U





Tooner wrote:
> MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:
>
> "Windows - No Disk
> Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> ...
> Cancel, Try Again, Continue"
>
> Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.
>
> Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
> know if you see anything similar.
>
> Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
> but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
> designed the web-site.
>
> Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
> guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?
>
> Frank, K2NCC
>
>
>   

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Bill McLaughlin]

Hi Frank,

I am running it under Vista on this box without any problems. I like
Multipsk for a variety of reasons. It offers many modes and despite
what some claim is a "cluttered" interface, I prefer being able to
change modes without fighting through numerous pull-down menus.
Suspect the biggest reason people like it is due to Patrick himself -
he is very responsive to any questions or suggestions.
I use ALE on occasion, mostly ALE400 as it has a great deal to offer
in a relatively narrow bandwidth but far from the only reason I prefer
Multipsk to other apps. I am not a fan of fatter is better in and of
itself.
To me registering Multipsk was one of my few good investments. 
I do use a variety of other programs, but still prefer Multipsk when
running a mode it supports.

73,

Bill N9DSJ  

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Tooner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:
> 
> "Windows - No Disk
> Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> ...
> Cancel, Try Again, Continue"
> 
> Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.
> 
> Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
> know if you see anything similar.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
> but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
> designed the web-site.
> 
> Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
> guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?
> 
> Frank, K2NCC
>

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Kevin O'Rorke]

Sholto Fisher wrote:

Tooner wrote:
  

MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:

"Windows - No Disk
Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
...
Cancel, Try Again, Continue"

Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.

Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
know if you see anything similar.

Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
designed the web-site.

Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?

Frank, K2NCC





MultiPSK has a lot more in it than just the ALE Frank. It takes time to 
learn what it can do but is well worth the effort. Quite honestly I 
don't mind the interface - been using it for 3 years and you learn to 
live with the quirks.


I like the fact that Patrick F6CTE (the author) spends his time 
inventing, developing and improving digi-modes rather than wasting it on 
making the program look like something Microsoft developed.


It's kinda like homebrewing a qrp radio using dead-bug or "Manhattan" 
construction. Who cares what it looks like it's how well it does the job 
that matters.


73, Sholto  KE7HPV.


  
Sholto, I heartily second that. Well put. Those who complain about the 
UI really need to go away and use another Program.
No it is not all about ALE as it has all the other digital programs and 
more.

Kevin VK5OA

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Sholto Fisher]

Tooner wrote:
> MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:
> 
> "Windows - No Disk
> Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
> ...
> Cancel, Try Again, Continue"
> 
> Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.
> 
> Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
> know if you see anything similar.
> 
> Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
> but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
> designed the web-site.
> 
> Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
> guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?
> 
> Frank, K2NCC
> 
> 

MultiPSK has a lot more in it than just the ALE Frank. It takes time to 
learn what it can do but is well worth the effort. Quite honestly I 
don't mind the interface - been using it for 3 years and you learn to 
live with the quirks.

I like the fact that Patrick F6CTE (the author) spends his time 
inventing, developing and improving digi-modes rather than wasting it on 
making the program look like something Microsoft developed.

It's kinda like homebrewing a qrp radio using dead-bug or "Manhattan" 
construction. Who cares what it looks like it's how well it does the job 
that matters.

73, Sholto  KE7HPV.

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Tooner]

MultiPSK gives an error in Vista 64-bit:

"Windows - No Disk
Exception Processing Message 0xc013 Parameters
...
Cancel, Try Again, Continue"

Selecting either will still pull up the program.  Seems to work fine.

Not a biggie, but in case someone else is using the same O/S, let us
know if you see anything similar.

Meanwhile, it's aood program for the 'rarer' modes like PAX or CHIP,
but still kinda clunky and cluttered.  You can tell the same author
designed the web-site.

Any big fans of MULTIPSK that might like offer why they use it?  I'm
guessing you're using it for the ALE applications?

Frank, K2NCC

[digitalradio] Re: New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK

[Paul]

--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> New release (4.7) of MULTIPSK
> 

Patrick,
Would you please outline the best way to update Multipsk. I don't do
it very often and where the files go gets confusing. For example, do
we download your file, expand it to a temporary folder, then click
some setup/installer icon in the temporary folder and navigator to the
original folder were it will replace everything but keep preferences?

Thank you and 73,
Paul