Archive
 
 
  Topic: Missing Radio Hams (22 replies)
#1     Sun May 13, 2007 1:27 am
9H4CM
VICTORIA GOZONEAR MALTA
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 5
Subject: Missing Radio Hams

I have been using this program from day 1 my number is 8 and I am rather disappionted with it as every time I switch on there is a maximum of 3 hams they can't all be asleep and it seems this program is only being used by hams in the West I have never heard for example a Chinese Station or African I wonder if its due to the cost.


9H4cm
__________________
#2     Sun May 13, 2007 2:31 am
DG7LAE
Luebeck
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 67
Subject:

I think what bothers people is not so much the amount of money .
But people have got the habit of getting everything for free in the internet especially ham software and now this is not free .

If someone is able to spend money on ham eqiupment then the amount of 32 dollars cannot be a real problem , sure there are people who need every cent for living but these people are also not able to spend hundreds of dollars for real hf equipment and you will not find them on air either .

With echolink, skype , eqso .... around , people have alternatives and they choose them , I like this CQ100 , so i paid and use it daily .

Concering China/Africa : I had several contacts to South Africa and at least one to China ( BG7JSO ) as well as many to south asia like South Korea , Philippines ... , even rare places like Cayman Isl .

Uli
__________________
#3     Mon May 14, 2007 3:17 pm
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

Hi Charlie,

Its not the cost. Lots of people are buying after the 90 day free trial.

Right now I see 297 stations listening but just 4 spikes total across all bands. I guess everyone is shy :)

Daily registrations for the free trial are down from 90 a day last December to 25 a day recently. I wish someone could explain this drop in registrations when there has been no change in price. That post by W7RJR on Eham certainly did not help things.

I agree with Uli's comments. $32 will not even buy the coax cable for an HF station. Anyone who can afford an HF station can afford the cost of Qsonet if they decide they want it.

I just heard there is some editorial mention about Qsonet in the June CQ magazine. I wonder what it says.

73, Doug
__________________
#4     Mon May 14, 2007 6:51 pm
W7RJR
Spokane, WA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Subject: Post did not help things

Doug

I think it was inappropriate for you to single me out here for an honest review I made on Eham.net. If you feel my review was in error you are welcome to post a response.


73
__________________
#5     Tue May 15, 2007 11:00 am
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

Hi Bob. Yes I think your review at Eham contained several errors. Unfortunately, Eham does not allow me to post any criticism of other reviews. Would it be ok with you if I post my repsonse in here?

73, Doug
__________________
#6     Tue May 15, 2007 11:56 am
W7RJR
Spokane, WA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Subject: Review response

Hello Doug

I would be happy to discuss the review and the issues mentioned in Eham.net with you.

73

Bob
__________________
#7     Wed May 16, 2007 8:34 pm
W0SDG
Apple Valley MN
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 101
Subject:

I finally found the review and basically I would have to agree with Bob. I find little to be disputed if any. I am disappointed as well with the direction and progress of the CQ100. I too have seen many come and go and less activity by those who have subscribed. For me it was never the issue of the $32 fee. I am still impressed by the design and concept of the CQ100 but the technical problems Bob mentioned have and still exist. There has been no technical improvements, and unanswered questions by many, especially the resizing and or minimizing issue, and these are issues. I am not sure the dropouts, ghosting, and other simular problems can even be addressed with the present VOIP operating specs. I would certainly like to know that these issues can be corrected or improved before I will renew in the future.

The concept of the CQ100, to me, is acceptable as is. I recently was told of a logging feature that is being worked on. But before any bells and whistles are added, I would like to see general operating improvements that continue to be a problem. If they can't be improved, then I see no future in renewing. What would please me Doug, is to hear from you that the current problems are being worked on, respond to the sizing or minimizing concerns, and see some reasonable upgrades to the CQ100 on a timely basis.

For whatever reason, this program is losing it's luster. As Bob indicated, it is full of new users that are initially impressed as we were, but it is failing to hold the attention of the core members and keeping others from becoming members. You intitially dazzled us Doug, you need to continue to do that. I have always been in favor of your success with this and your initial motivation to create a safe operating environmnet for ham operators. Maybe my expectations were unreasonable to begin with. I hope not. I'd personally like to renew.

Steve - W0SDG
__________________
#8     Thu May 17, 2007 3:59 am
DL8FCE
Riedstadt nr Frankfurt
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1
Subject:

I agree with Steve. For me it was not the issue of the $32 fee. The Users post here a lot of sugestions, the last CQ 100 upgrate was on Februar. I still waiting.

sorry for my bad english.

Ralf - DL8FCE
__________________
#9     Thu May 17, 2007 1:45 pm
VE3EFC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 724
Subject:

CQ100 is not a buggy program. I remain proud of my craftmanship. Perhpas I made an error by allowing Windows 98 and dialup users. The problems are on their side, not mine. The latest version 1.2 released February 12 fixed all of the outstanding problems.

A few people have requested Minimize amd resize but its a designer's decision not to do that. Its not a bug. Its a decision. I like to receive suggestions, and I can be swayed. But I will decide which ones to do.

I will start a new topic to discuss the issues raised on Eham, because Eham would not allow me to respond there.
__________________
#10     Thu May 17, 2007 2:33 pm
W7RJR
Spokane, WA
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 114
Subject: RE: Missing Hams

Hello Doug

Whatever the cause of the problem(s) they need to be addressed and fixed. Were this a free donation to the amateur radio community it might be different. When you charge for a service it has to work without significant problems.

73
__________________




Copyright ©2013 Cormac Technologies Inc.