We lost power for a few hours. Looks like I missed a load of fun...
W4TV wrote: > >> The bedrock point of principle is this: users should *never* be >> forced to resort to macros for simple industry-standard features that >> ought to be part of the firmware. > >Since *when* is a programmable split an "industry standard feature"? >In 40 years, I have *never* owned a transceiver that included a >programmable split feature. Admittedly some of the newer rigs may >offer that function - but it was not not present in any transceiver I >owned or used from the TS-520/FT-101B in the 70's through the FT-1000MP >MKV including transceivers by all major manufacturers. > RTFM! My 1000MP MK1 had programmable Quick Split from 1995, so your later MkV had it too (I'm looking at a downloaded manual right now). Turning to Icom, the IC-746 had Quick Split in 1997 and their top-of-the-line models probably had it even earlier. Proof enough, if proof were needed, that the two largest transceiver manufacturers have had Quick Split as part of their feature-set for at least 20 years. From their early top-of-the-line models, Quick Split has trickled down to become an expected feature in any modern CPU-controlled HF transceiver that is targeted at DX operators. Why? Because Quick Split is helpful to users - it *guarantees* to shift the TX VFO away from the frequency of the DX station in a pileup - and also because it isn't a difficult feature for manufacturers to include. (But radios like the TS-520/FT-101B from the 1970s have no part in this discussion. You can't have programmed Split in a radio that has a hand-cranked VFO... and no CPU!) >What you are really asking for - based on the "hold split" behavior >in other recent rigs is getting back to a *THIRD STATE* on a switch. >It would need to be a two second hold of A-> B, one second for normal >split, two for "quick split" ... another UI cluster. No... what I am "really asking for" is WHAT I REALLY WROTE. If you had read the whole posting before jumping to the wrong conclusions, it was completely clear that my suggestion was to offer Quick Split as an option that could only be selected through a new item in the Configuration menu, as an alternative behavior for the existing [SPLIT] button. That proposal does NOT require a third switch state, so I wasn't asking for one. That and everything else you wrote about "other recent rigs", "a third state" and "a two second hold" was the product of your own incorrectly imagined scenario. You made it up and you got it wrong. This is by no means an isolated case. Please try much harder to read what people ACTUALLY DID WRITE. 73 from Ian GM3SEK ______________________________________________________________ Elecraft mailing list Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm Post: mailto:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html Message delivered to [email protected]
