[1000mp] Was => Pro III -- FT1000MP comparison

[Tod - ID]

Although I said that I was through with this thread I received off-reflector
a note about a "significant" difference between the ICOM 756 Pro series [and
I think all ICOM transceivers] and the FT1000X series.  I thought I would
post it and see if people who own (have owned) both could confirm what I
think I was told.

Here what I was told,

"Because the ICOM computer interface fails to implement a capability to
determine if the radio is currently running in split/dualwatch it's
impossible to properly use the radio with logging/contest programs.  I have
complained for years about this oversight (you can sense just about
everything else you can imagine...but this critical command is missing) to
ICOM America in person and by e-mail.  The ARRL technical staff is also
aware of this and has been in the loop.  The problem is that, and this was
told to me directly by the ICOM America manager, Japan simply ignores our
plea.

All the competing radios from Yaesu, TenTec, and some others properly
implement this.

The issue arises when you want to properly respond to a  DX Spot with a QSX
in the comment field, and then when you wish to issue a spot to the DX
Cluster.  In the later case only the ICOM of the top radios cannot generate
a QSX spot because the ICOM is incapable to telling the programs if it is in
split mode."

We have all seen QSX spots and I have generated them while using my
FT1000MP, but I have never tried to do so using my ICOM 756 Pro II [now in a
different State than I am again]. 

Can anyone confirm that this is (1) real and (2) significant? Maybe it is
simply a vagary of the logging software in use?

Tod, KØTO