FireBrick wrote: >Done it both way, couple of times. >It's fast either way. >I see the screen flickering and the previous qso window changing with >sh/fdx/50. >It's way to fast to read either way. >My log is 45.8K > > > >
Very interesting....wonder what is going on here. I have a 1GHz system, so should have the horsepower. I have DXB2003 still installed, so I went back to that and SH/FDX/50 completed in 5 seconds, as you say too fast to read. DXB2004 took 33 seconds for the same command to complete. I did it several times and it didn't vary by more than a second. It's processing time in DXB2004 that is responsible, if I do a SH/FDX/50 on a separate telnet client it takes just a few seconds. And SH/DX/50 on DXB2004 is just as quick. So clearly time is being consumed by DXB2004 doing analysis on the spots. The question is, why so slow here and so fast at your QTH? I would appreciate it if some other DXB2004 users would do the same test. Ron, N5IN
