I agree with you except on the programming, I think the Icom is just as
easy, big problem I have is with the keypad, I keep hitting the 8 when I
want to hit 0,  I'm sure you must know what I mean.  I agree with you on the
rest of it right to the word.
John Miller N1UMJ
Owner: J E M Racing need sponsors and crew help
to chat with me  AOL instant messenger JEMracing3
----- Original Message -----
From: "Butch Bussen" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 4:56 PM
Subject: Re: handhelds


> This question comes up every month or so and I write a reply and think
>
> I should have saved a copy of what I wrote last month.  So, this time,
>
> I'm saving a copy.  I havbe both hts.  Honestly, I use the Kenwood more
>
> for ham use just because it is easier to program and I have all the
>
> local repeaters in it for Las Vegas.  I'm going to buy a cable to
>
> program the t90 from a local ham if he ever brings it by.  I do have
>
> the cable for the Kenwood.  Here are my thoughts, for whatever they are
>
> worth.
>
> First, let us compare assessories.  Kenwood is  high on these things,
>
> as all manufacturers seem to be, but Icom is even more expensive.
>
> Examples.  Kenwood software is free on line.  Icom software I think is
>
> $25.00.  Kenwood computer programming cable is $35.00.  Icom cable is
>
> $45.00.  NOte, this cable is available from another source for $25.
>
> The DC power cord is similar.  $35 for the Kenwood, $45 for the icom.
>
> The icom specificly says in the book not to exceed 11.5 volts, so
>
> you'll need some kind of regulater if you plan to run it on 12v
>
> cigarrete lighter, which you could build or buy their high priced dc
>
> cord.
>
> Layout.  I prefer the layout on the kenwood.  It has a more standard
>
> keypad, basically 4 by 4.  The icom has 3 keys up and down and 5 wide
>
> which I think is a little strange.
>
> Tv band and cw.  The two main reasons I bought the t90 after already
>
> owning a th-f6 are these.  The icom has a cw readout for frequency.
>
> Also, the Icom has TV channels preprogrammed.  NOt a big deal, as I
>
> programmed all of the channels into the kenwood when I got the cable.
>
> I don't know if Icom also played with the filtering or what, but the
>
> 690 beats the kenwood hands down for receive on TV channels.  I
>
> compared them side by side many times.  I've even swapped antennas.
>
> Icom always wins.  Stations I can't even hear on the Kenwood are
>
> crystal clear on the 690.  I suspect it has something to do with the
>
> bandwidth.  I ran into an engineer at the N A B convention here, and he
>
> tole me Tv channels were 25 KC wide, and I think Fm is a hundred.
>
> The icom does not receive as high a frequency as the Kenwood, but I
>
> don't recall the exact numbers.  One big drawback, and I don't know why
>
> they did this, is what the icom does above 900.  I use some wireless
>
> headphones and speaker systems at home and I like to grab the ht and
>
> listen to these outside.  The kenwood works fine as I can put it in
>
> wide fm mode above 900.  Not so with the 690.  It forces you to narro
>
> and won't receive wide at all.  Also, the Kenwood receives sideband.
>
> It isn't very sensative, but does make a nice transmit monitor.
>
> I feel the Kenwood is easier to program.  The icom isn't bad once you
>
> get the hang of it, I just think the Kenwood is more intuitive.  I
> haven't checked lately, but I think the 690 is less expensive for the
>
> basic package than the Kenwood.
>
> I guess, if I had to pick, I'd pick the Kenwood.  Actually, I'd like to
>
> cross them and come up with one heck of a radio.  Hope this helps.  AS
>
> the old saying goes, your mileage may vary...
>
> 73s.
> Butch
> WA0VJR.
>