On Thu, Jun 12, 2003 at 09:50:25PM -0400, Romney White wrote: > Yes, and then by my reading you went on to say that somehow there was a > difference in function and ease of use in FCON's favor, apparently because > it is more expensive than the toolkit. > Romney
FCON is easier to type and has been in my fingers longer. In the previous note, I used the two terms interchangably, since, as you say, they are the same thing. Here's a recap, being more careful with the terminology: The original comparison was between the Performance Toolkit (referred to in this note as PT) and ESALPS, not PT and FCON/ESA (here used as a literal reference to the product). ESALPS costs more than PT does. ESALPS also has more functions than PT. In my opinion, PT is easier to learn to use than ESALPS but at this point in time does not have as many analysis functions and capabilities as ESALPS. PT may be acceptable for many general uses, but if the choice is between the two and you are willing to accept the learning curve associated with becoming proficient with ESALPS and the higher price of ESALPS, you will probably like ESALPS better over the long haul. Does that clear up the confusion? -- db
