[LOGic] CommCat v. LOGic 9?

[J.A. Wolf, MD, K6JW]

Lack of perfection (along with frustration) is a way of life in amateur 
radio, but we love it!!!
--Jeff, K6JW


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Carl J. Denbow" <n8vz at qth.com>
To: "LOGic is open to all radio amateurs for discussion of LOGic 
loggingprogram" <logic at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 20:57
Subject: Re: [LOGic] CommCat v. LOGic 9?


> Well, I've never "converted" to CommCat, I've just used it kind like a
> secondary logger on certain occasions.  I've been a little frustrated
> that neither program reads the other's ADIF file QSL information
> correctly.  CommCat, I believe, uses a more standard internal
> nomenclature, while LOGic uses  the more complex, but better and more
> complete, R-F-X system, rather than the simple Y-N system.  As I said,
> I've done very little hamming of any type of a few years, but now that
> I'm getting ready to get back into the fray, I'm up to my old
> complaining ways once again! :-)
>
> 73,
>
> Carl
> N8VZ
> ===================================
>
> J.A. Wolf, MD, K6JW wrote:
>> I, too, have run CommCat in the past. I converted to it from LOGic for
>> awhile because of its focus on DX. Ultimately, though, I found it less
>> flexible than LOGic and so I returned to LOGic and have been happy ever
>> since. When I "came home" to LOGic, I queried Dennis about creating some 
>> of
>> the configuration flexibility in the Spot Log that CommCat has, which I
>> think is that program's strongest point. Although he he hasn't done it, I
>> still think LOGic is the better all-around logging program, even for a 
>> DXer
>> like me. In many ways, it's more configurable, although I've voiced my
>> feeling before on this reflector that it has grown too complex in its
>> present form. My recommendation is that LOGic be broken into discrete
>> functional modules, making it easier to navigate and configure. Often, I
>> feel as though I have to hunt through too many different menus and 
>> screens
>> to accomplish a given task. A reorganization of the program with a view
>> toward making it easier to navigate and configure would therefore be my 
>> top
>> priority for a new version.
>> --Jeff, K6JW
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Carl J. Denbow" <n8vz at qth.com>
>> To: "LOGic is open to all radio amateurs for discussion of LOGic
>> loggingprogram" <logic at mailman.qth.net>
>> Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 15:05
>> Subject: [LOGic] LOGic 9 coming soon?
>>
>>
>>
>>> An XL on a ham forum that I happened upon a few weeks ago implied that
>>> LOGic 9 was soon to be released.  I'm not sure if she had any "inside
>>> information" or if she was just wishing.  Dennis usually maintains a
>>> DOD-level of security surrounding such issues, so I suspect that the
>>> latter is more likely to be the case.  Nevertheless, I thought that this
>>> might be a good time to review some of our "wish list" items.  Top on my
>>> list are an integrated PSK module and an ADIF export that properly
>>> converts QSL info to a format correctly read by other programs such as
>>> QSLMaker and CommCat.   Though I like LOGic better overall, I must admit
>>> that I sometimes us CommCat, which is an excellent program in its own
>>> right, and is somewhat DX-centric.  Due, in part, to some family issues
>>> I haven't done much hamming at all in the last year, but plan to get
>>> back into the swing in '09.
>>>
>>> 73,
>>>
>>> Carl
>>> N8VZ
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LOGic mailing list
>>> LOGic at mailman.qth.net
>>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/logic
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LOGic mailing list
>> LOGic at mailman.qth.net
>> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/logic
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LOGic mailing list
> LOGic at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/logic
>