Yaesu makes some fine radios. I also have an FT-450AT and think it's superb. I've built the HW/SB-102s and -104s and had a Drake TR-4 so I have had and know what old-school radio people considered, for that time, the "Cadillac" style of ham radio. The 450 has good DSP controls but once set up, it is never touched...! However, with what I'm seeing from the reports of those who have the 817, I have come to wonder if the people at Yaesu who make the 450 and the 817/818 actually work in the same building or if they even talk to each other. It might be a good thought if Yaesu had the policy of moving their engineers and technicians around sometimes to other sections so some of the good features of their various radios/systems could be shared around with other parts of the company. Yaesu has some very good radios and this is why you can see some of their radios around for decades. Calling the 818 a "replacement" for the 817 seems a bit of a stretch and this may be why so many here are disappointed with the 818. One can assume that if the 818 is a replacement for the 817, that the 817 is on the way out and soon to be obsolete. Also, it was apparently assumed that such a "replacement" would incorporate significant improvement over the 817 but from comments here, such improvements are lacking in the 818. If Yaesu had wanted the 817 to be remembered as a good part of the Yaesu lineup history, much better would have been to call the 818 version the Yaesu FT-817 Mark II and not simply relegate the 817 to history. A lot of sales would have been made as a Mark II because of the good reputation of the original 817. Inciting controversy as we see here with the 818 has done Yaesu no good whatsoever. Merely calling a cow's tail a leg does not mean a cow has five legs — that tail is still just a tail.