[Elecraft] K3 Curious behavio

[Ian White GM3SEK]

Julian G4ILO wrote:
>On Nov 29, 2007 7:36 AM, Ian White GM3SEK <gm3sek at ifwtech.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> I'm aware of that option, but would only regard it as a temporary
>> workaround. Connecting a computer and reconfiguring the whole rig is not
>> the right way to handle a routine change of operators.
>
>I imagine most people have a computer in their shack anyway, and the
>K3 is probably already connected to it for firmware updates, if not
>for logging, so where's the difficulty?
>

As others are saying, we need to keep a clear distinction between the 
different layers of controls and data:

1. Front-panel controls (for moment-to-moment operation)
2. MAIN menu (mostly operations-related)
3. CONFIG menu (mostly static configuration items)
4. Downloads from an external source.

Individual user profiles would be a layer-2 function. Using layer 4 for 
this purpose would certainly not be difficult; it's just ugly.

>The real problem with the proposal as suggested is that it would
>require a whole duplicate area of memory to store just one saved
>firmware configuration, whereas a computer could store an unlimited
>number with no overhead. People keep adding ideas to the K3 wish list
>and Elecraft keep adding them to the list, but I guess that the point
>has to be reached some time when the K3 MCU runs out of memory to add
>new features, just as the original one in the K2 did. This doesn't
>seem to me like a good use of a presumably limited resource.

Maybe it doesn't, to you. But family operators will value it, and 
contest operators will demand it.

Nobody is suggesting storage of the complete firmware configuration, 
only the parts that genuinely do vary between individual users - voice 
EQ being the most obvious example, keyer settings and stored messages 
involving the operator's callsign being two more.

As for 'presumably limited resources', the MCU has 2Mbits of flash 
memory for storage of static data (and another 2Mbits for dynamic data). 
Given the trivial number of bits that individual user profiles would 
actually need, I don't think this request would break the bank.


-- 

73 from Ian GM3SEK