"Ed_G" wrote in
. 192.196:

Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use
to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly!



Perhaps you are not aware of the common phrase, "beauty is in the
eyes
of the beholder."


Ed K7AAT



Actually as long as the gear does a good job of being a radio, who cares
what it looks like? Did you buy it to look at or use? What aare you doing
trying to impress others or have fun?

:-D



--
Panzer

On Fri, 23 May 2008, Middle Aged Ham wrote:


Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly?

Good question, but I agree. All black, lots of knobs & buttons, and you
have to read the manual (thick, does it have mistakes & bugs?) before you
can use it. I used to have a TS-520. I knew how to use it without reading
the manual (just from basic principles), and readout which is too "busy".

HF Ham radios use
to be a thing of beauty,

I always thougth the Colins S line (etc) to be the absolute tops in
esthetics. Old Halicrafters (SX-99, 101, 96, 100, etc., my next second
best).

but now most of them are butt ugly!

Yeah, and I'd rather look at the Mona Lisa.

Icom Radios all look like oversized Palm Pilots

Kenwood HF Radios - What where they thinking?
TS-480? - Yuck! I would not want that thing on my desk.
TS-2000 - Deaf, poor selectivity, and ugly.

Technology evolution has all geared to _specification_ features and not
good common sense. Who needs 200 frequecy memories? What fraction of all
hams really "watch TV" on the spectrum analyzer readout on the blowout
rigs. How many of those knobs go "beep" when you push them?

More below...

Ok. The Yaesu FT-2000 is nice looking, but according to EHam.net
reviews there are issues with the AGC popping, and the 3 kHz roofing
filter actually being wider than the 6 kHz roofing filter. I'm
holding out for future fixes on this one.

Yaesu FT-950 -mildly ugly
Yaesu FT-897D - really ugly
Yaesu FT-857D - compact and ugly
Yaesu FT-817ND - Looks like it has warts on it's face
Yaseu FT-450 - Pretty ugly

TenTecOrion II and Omni VII - Oversized Palm Pilots.

Now the Kenwood TS-940 was a good looking radio.
The Drake TR-7 was nice looking.
The Yaesu FT-980 was sharp looking.
The Yaesu FT-1000d was nice looking
The TenTec Omni VI was nice looking.

The same thing happened to component stereo systems. In the 1970s and
1980s they were gorgeous, but now they are ugly black metal boxes.

If you think about all the sci-fi movies, high tech military movies, its
the same thing. Overdone details.

What happened to the radio equipment that you could display proudly
for everyone to see instead of something so ugly even the owner does
not want to look at it?

You've got a tough life ahead of you: try to find those old boat anchors
and try to restore one (xcvr) or two (xmtr-rcvr), and use it.

Me, I'm building my own homebrew all tube gear, out of junk box parts.
Looks like hell (nobody would give me 50 cents for it) but I love it and
can fix it myself (and its worth a million bucks to me).

Middle Aged Ham wrote:

Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use
to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly!


Radios will always go into different phases of how they "look. And it's
all in the eyes of the beerholder anyhow.

I just love the look of my IC-761. 50 or so pounds of real man's radio
with a BIG freaking knob on it. Booyeah! I also do like the looks of the
TS-480. I own one, and it looks and performs just fine.

What's your idea of a good looking radio, or do you just post about
what you don't like?

OTOH, I know I'm spouting heresy here, but I don't like the way Collins
radios, or HRO's or the old Johnson's look.

The neat thing is if we don't like the way radio's look, we don't have
to buy those ones.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Middle Aged Ham" wrote in
message news
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios use
to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly!

Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly.

(D. Stussy) wrote in
:

"Middle Aged Ham" wrote
in message news
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios
use
to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly!

Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly.

You have a problem with the term "ham" in this context?

Please elaborate.

--
Bert Hyman | St. Paul, MN |

"Bert Hyman" wrote in message
...
(D. Stussy) wrote in
:
"Middle Aged Ham" wrote
in message news
Why are almost all the new HF ham radios so ugly? HF Ham radios
use
to be a thing of beauty, but now most of them are butt ugly!

Because amateur radio operators who call themselves "hams" are ugly.

You have a problem with the term "ham" in this context?

Please elaborate.

It is well known that "ham" is a derrogatory term meaning unprofessional
(cf. "Mickey Mouse"). It comes from the definition of the word (as a verb)
which means to excessively overexaggerate. Obviously, I'm not referring to
the other meanings: Cuts of meat, or the given name of one of Noah's sons.

Granted that literally, amateur operators must serve without compensation
for their services (and thus not reach "professional" status - i.e. paid),
the derrogatory meaning doesn't source from that part of the definition.
One dictionary (Random House) went further and listed an origin: "Short for
'hamfatter' - from 'The Hamfat Man', a negro minstrel song celebrating an
awkward man." Awkward in the 18th Century and earlier is a nice way of what
today we would call retarded. The definition came through the years to us
today via theater, where "ham" was first applied to unprofessional and
unconvincing actors on account of their exaggeration of expression - i.e.
"they can't act."

So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).

--
You asked.

D. Stussy wrote:

So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).


I are a Ham!


Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal.

Allow a similar case.

Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people
think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy
Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal,
I'd be proud to be called one

I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham.

It isn't a bad actor
It isn't a Piece of pork.

It is a licensed radio amateur.


While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur"
demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that
what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely
different things, although apparently not to some.

How about a new reference name for the service


So what do *you* want to be called?

As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
D. Stussy wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a
retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).


I are a Ham!


Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal.

Allow a similar case.

Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people
think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy
Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal,
I'd be proud to be called one

That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing.

I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham.

It isn't a bad actor
It isn't a Piece of pork.

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It is a licensed radio amateur.


While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur"
demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that
what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely
different things, although apparently not to some.

Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does.

How about a new reference name for the service


So what do *you* want to be called?

As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings....

"D. Stussy" wrote in message
...
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
D. Stussy wrote:
So, basically, calling someone a "ham" is the same as calling them a
retard
at worst, and at best, acknowledging their irrelevant self-importance
in
thinking that they know what they're doing (whether they do or not).


I are a Ham!


Your interpretation of Ham is fine for you, but by no means universal.

Allow a similar case.

Navy Seal's are proud to call themselves Seals, but when some people
think of seals, they think of the circus clown animals. Yet the Navy
Seals are some of the roughest toughest guys around. If I were a seal,
I'd be proud to be called one

That is the adoption of a mascot. Not quite the same thing.

I'm a Ham, I'm pleased as punch to be called a Ham.

It isn't a bad actor
It isn't a Piece of pork.

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It is a licensed radio amateur.


While we are at it, there are those who find the term "Amateur"
demeaning, as if it is sub par relative of a radio professional. Or that
what we do is Amateurish. Amateur and Amateurish are two completely
different things, although apparently not to some.

Amateur doesn't have the bad connotation (or as bad) as ham does.

How about a new reference name for the service


So what do *you* want to be called?

As for me, I am a Ham, and happy to be called one.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

Your choice - as long as you recognize the other meanings....

------------

I'd just as soon not be known at all. I love obscurity. I like to keep it
that way in the neighborhood too. My antennas are mostly clandestine in
appearance.

Besides, I don't base my self esteem upon what others think of me. At least
not when I'm taking my meds.

Ed, NM2K

In "D. Stussy" wrote:

Considering that many "hams" are grossly overweight (at least in my
geographic area), are you certain?

It's pretty clear that you've picked the wrong hobby.

Good luck.

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN