Options yes, absolutely. I have no desire to force my operating style on anyone and don't want anyone else's style forced on me.
"A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over." Ben Franklin -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian White GM3SEK Sent: Monday, February 16, 2009 3:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Elecraft] Feature request Joe Subich, W4TV wrote: > >I have to disagree ... quick split would cause too may other problems >like losing the frequency if one has already set VFO B (subreciever) to >the desired place. > >Except for actions explicitly designed to change frequency (tune the >VFO, change band, recall a memory, etc.), the user interface should >never change the frequency and it should never change the frequency of >the "other" VFO. > This shows why everything needs to be an OPTION - there are so many different operating styles. The industry-standard "quick split" function is designed for people whose operating style is to tune the DX station on VFO A, and then want a quick way to set the up the rig to call on a split frequency using VFO B (and the sub-rx if available). Quick split has become an industry standard because significant numbers of users do find it valuable, for two major reasons: 1. Speed 2. Reducing the risk of errors - above all, avoiding the cardinal sin of transmitting on the DX frequency. Users of quick split know all about its disadvantages too. Obviously, quick split will not be suitable for all circumstances (it would be great to have the option to make it a PF toggle). Obviously, any existing VFO B frequency will be lost. Also any pre-configured split can only be an individual operator's best guess, so it needs to be configurable; but *any* offset is better than zero - see point 2 above. Even people who value quick split will only use it when the advantages override those disadvantages. They are also aware of others who would not like this function, wouldn't need it, or simply can't see how any sane person could ask for such a thing. That's fine, because it is being requested as an *option*. If Elecraft does decide to introduce it, there would be no adverse impact on anyone who doesn't wish to enable it. It may also be well to remember that the *only* purpose of discussion about feature requests is to set out the issues for Elecraft to consider. The rest is up to Elecraft. -- 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 ______________________________________________________________ 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
