On Jan 28, 2006, at 9:14 PM, Michelle Anne Cello wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I agree on most all of your points. The SkyTools database is very
> good at
> many things. You can view your observation logs by night, by
> telescope, by
> eyepiece... whatever you want. But getting data out to import into
> something like an Excel spreadsheet is impossible. You can not get
> any kind
> of delimited text into or out of SkyTools. This is a huge liability.
Yes, I agree. I have several year's worth of observing logs that are
trapped
inside SkyTools, with no way to get them out or get them into another
application.
That data is far more important to me than SkyTools, yet it's being
held hostage
because the author thinks that his program should be the center of your
universe, and doesn't understand that interoperability makes his
software
*more* desirable, not less so.
> Someday, upgrades to SkyTools won't be available. And at some
> point beyond
> that, the application will cease to be incompatable with the operating
> systems. That is my biggest current issue with SkyTools.
The "upgrades won't be available" scenario could have come sooner than
anyone thought. Last year, Greg Crinklaw (SkyTools author) spent
several
months in the hospital, due to complications from surgery. He may
not have
survived. What would have happened to SkyTools users then?
I agree that the "roach motel" (data goes in, doesn't come out)
aspect of
ST is a major problem.
>
> I do use a GOTO Plettsone scope, so charting is not as much of an
> issue as
> it used to be for me. So this has become a non-requirement.
>
Yes, and I understand that's the case for many. I develop computer
software
in my day job, and I spend way too much time in front of a computer when
I'm not working. So I'm a bit of a weirdo in that I *don't* want to
deal with
computers when I'm out observing.
Michael Portuesi
Received on Sun Jan 29 13:09:56 2006