Originally posted by Besercoe
Does this revelation mean there is going to be a positive or a negative effect on clubs, will clubs update to a current program or will they try and struggle on with a redundant version? maybe its time for people with the rights to the various other programs to come to the rescue, with discounted license rates etc.
Ken my thoughts are with you, and anyone else that is having personal problems.
Trev - it would be ignorant to boycott a race meeting based solely on the system being used, there just arent that many big meetings in Australia to pick and choose.
Its amusing how everyone has gone personal, i believe Mackem created the thread to talk about ways of improving meetings, being from a program point of view, hardware, or just the general knowledge of the user. IMO if a club puts their hand up for a major meeting then they should have a current lap scoring program, an up to date hardware setup, the knowledge to operate it effectively, and most of all that all the components when combined operate effectively.
In the last few meetings i can think of the following issues:
Tamworth - Power spikes, to my knowledge they were not running a UPS or a surge protector.
Wodonga - a borrowed system incorrectly set up.
ACT - according to Steve, a new PC not proven.
This info is from memory so if it is incorrect please advise, but they all relate to a lack of preparation on the clubs behalf, most of the discussion to now has been on the software alone, while it has been pointed out that the program has been at the centre of a number of issues, the whole system needs to be investigated. I would like to see all major meeting attain a ARCMACCA's approval under which things like track condition, and lapscoring systems are meant to be up to scratch. But for whatever reason this was not upheld in relation to Wodonga.
While RC in Aus is such a small market i dont see it getting any bigger if we continue to put up with less than professional meetings, my thanks go out to those that put the required effort into running meetings, but misdirected effort is no help to us either.
Some common sense at last. The purpose of this thread was absolutely not to bash the software or the race officials. It seems from the discussion, no matter how rational, or irrational it has been, that the problem may well be that the version of the software and the hardware used are not compatable, especially when the resources are a little stretched with a large field.
If this is the case, are the users just ignoring the requirements of the software or is there a lack of communication regarding system requirements?
If we need a new computer, say held by ARCMACC, which will run big meetings, then surely those funds could easily be raised. There must have been close to 200 entries for last weekend. How difficult would it be to put a $5.00 levy on all ARCMACC affilliated events for the rest of the year. That should raise more than enough funds to slove the problem. Or am I wrong.