K3: AFX, NR, 5 khz tuning, 9 Khz Tuning, AGC SLP, et. al

[Ken817821]

All of these discussions seem to point out that there is need for operator control and knowlege to properly operate the radio.
 
For some users, the sun may rise and set on AM, but others are using the radio for moon bounce, 160 m CW contesting, transverter,  etc.
 
And when a feature is implimented just for "operator convenience", it may well limit the radio in some other unanticipated mode of operation.  Who knows what the spacing of SWBC signals will be in 10 years.  Who knows what new modes of digital communications will exist in 10 years.  Who knows how we will be using radios and the internet together in 10 years.
 
I vote for giving the operator control rather than giving the software control.  It is part of the adventure of the hobby to own a piece of gear that is complex enough that it is a challenge to us to squeeze out the last ounce of performance.  I vote for having thousands of permutations and combinations of features at my control.
 
Ken K5WK


 
_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Alexandr Kobranov]

> I vote for giving the operator control rather than giving the software control.  It is part of the adventure of the hobby to own a piece of gear that is complex enough that it is a challenge to us to squeeze out the last ounce of performance.  I vote for having thousands of permutations and combinations of features at my control.
>  
> Ken K5WK

Abolutely!
This is a important part of reasons why so many operators have choosed K3.
They are no doors closed, this is my main feeling about HW and
flexible FW developmnet.
And there is communication and service which is out of any (my)
previous experince.

73!
L. -dst-
K3/10 #727

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com

[Julian, G4ILO]

Kenneth Waites wrote

I vote for giving the operator control rather than giving the software control.  It is part of the adventure of the hobby to own a piece of gear that is complex enough that it is a challenge to us to squeeze out the last ounce of performance.  I vote for having thousands of permutations and combinations of features at my control.

Having read the recent QST review of the Flex 5000 I can see that a lot of people agree with you. I, personally, don't. I prefer a piece of equipment or a software program that does its job extremely well but is simple to operate without a lot of configuration options. I, as the user, am willing to adapt to the program or equipment if necessary.

This "ultimate configurability" has been the curse of Windows software development, and has resulted in bloatware like Microsoft Office that has so many options that I have often seen it cited that most users only know 20% of them. Some of the best software I ever used was DOS or early Windows software, and I could probably still do most of what I want to with it, if it was still possible to run it. In the same way, about the only thing wrong with the radios of 20 years ago was their performance, not their ergonomics.

I do not want to see radios going the same way as computer software. Already we see on this reflector people asking if it is possible to do things the K3 can already do. Most people can't remember everything they read in the manual (even if they read it in the first place) and this is probably more true of radio hams than computer users in general since most of us are getting to the age when it isn't so easy to remember stuff.

Now what was the point I was making...? :)

[Don Wilhelm-4]

Julian,

My cynicism is showing here, but I do believe that many people want all
the 'bells and whistles' even if they will never use them.  The result
is that we end up with a radio or software that many complain about
'because it is too hard to use'.  It is difficult to impossible for all
but a certain few to learn and fully use all the functions of the K3 (or
a complex software application), and only a very select few will ever
have need of *all* the available functions.

Fortunately, there are defaults that will work fine for the many many
users who are only willing to put forth the effort required to utilize
10 or 20% of the total function - as has been stated about the MS Office
users.  It is to the credit of the developers that they have provided
basic functions that many people can use to advantage.  Using that other
80% of the total function requires in-depth study, and not all are
willing to do that. - I know I don't,  I have enough 'irons in the fire'
that I am not willing to do that advanced study (and practice) until I
really have a defined need for it.

DOS and early Windows were quite straightforward and rigid in what could
be done if one was using the command line and one had to have a good
understanding of the internal workings to be able to fully use what
those systems provided.  In the meantime, specific applications made it
easier for many users to interface with the computer - the operating
system can be quite complex and difficult to learn, but the average user
does not have to know its internal workings - they only need to know how
to interface with the applications to do whatever work they need to have
done.

73,
Don W3FPR

G4ILO wrote:

> Having read the recent QST review of the Flex 5000 I can see that a lot of
> people agree with you. I, personally, don't. I prefer a piece of equipment
> or a software program that does its job extremely well but is simple to
> operate without a lot of configuration options. I, as the user, am willing
> to adapt to the program or equipment if necessary.
>
> This "ultimate configurability" has been the curse of Windows software
> development, and has resulted in bloatware like Microsoft Office that has so
> many options that I have often seen it cited that most users only know 20%
> of them. Some of the best software I ever used was DOS or early Windows
> software, and I could probably still do most of what I want to with it, if
> it was still possible to run it. In the same way, about the only thing wrong
> with the radios of 20 years ago was their performance, not their ergonomics.
>
> I do not want to see radios going the same way as computer software. Already
> we see on this reflector people asking if it is possible to do things the K3
> can already do. Most people can't remember everything they read in the
> manual (even if they read it in the first place) and this is probably more
> true of radio hams than computer users in general since most of us are
> getting to the age when it isn't so easy to remember stuff.
>
> Now what was the point I was making...? :)
>
> -----
> Julian, G4ILO  K3 s/n: 222 K2 s/n: 392
> G4ILO's Shack: www.g4ilo.com
> KComm for K2/K3: www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.4.1/1510 - Release Date: 6/19/2008 3:21 PM
>  

_______________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Post to: [hidden email]
You must be a subscriber to post to the list.
Subscriber Info (Addr. Change, sub, unsub etc.):
 http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft   

Help: http://mailman.qth.net/subscribers.htm
Elecraft web page: http://www.elecraft.com