| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 11.01.07 11:30l 275 Lines 10604 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 9521-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: [APRSSIG] Vol 31 #10, 2/4
Path: DB0FHN<DB0MRW<DK0WUE<DB0RES<TU5EX<IW2OAZ<ZL2BAU
Sent: 070111/1028Z @:ZL2BAU.#79.NZL.OC #:26312 [Waimate] $:9521-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL2BAU.#79.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 20:59:35 -0800
From: "Stephen H. Smith" <wa8lmf2_at_aol.com>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] APRS for a "ocean buoy"
jimlux_at_earthlink.net wrote:
>An acquaintance asked if there was decent APRS coverage along the
>coast of California, say out to 10-20 mi from the shoreline. The
>transmitter would be pretty close to sea level (on a kayak, for
>instance). 30m HF is an option, but there was some uncertainty about
>what sort of antenna would be possible for that.
>
>The alternatives are conventional satellite tracking (Argos, Orbcomm,
>Inmarsat D+)
>
>Jim, W6RMK
20 miles out with the antenna effectively on the ground (not on a boat's
mast), you probably won't do anything on VHF, unless you are off the shore
of the populated parts of CA with nearby mountaintop digipeaters.
A simple vertical whip should work very well on HF since you will have a
perfectly conducting infinite groundplane (i.e. salt water) all around you.
I am using a pair of 30M Hamsticks back-to-back as a simple dipole on 30M
APRS, but you could use a single one against ground out there. The real
question is how well will a Hamstick survive salt spray and ocean humidity.
I suppose you could seal it inside a piece of 1/2" PVC pipe to salf-proof
it.
--
Stephen H. Smith wa8lmf (at) aol.com
EchoLink Node: 14400 [Think bottom of the 2M band]
Home Page: http://wa8lmf.com --OR-- http://wa8lmf.net
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:09:08 -0800
From: "Scott Miller" <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] dos on a winxp machine
None of those were DOS utilities. They ARE command line utilities, and
Microsoft's actually been providing MORE of those with recent versions of
Windows, at least on the server side. They're learning from the Unix camp.
Some tasks are just better performed with a text interface.
I write native 32-bit Windows console apps all the time. They LOOK like
DOS programs, but they're not. It's actually my preferred Windows
programming environment - none of those pesky windows to get in the way!
Scott
N1VG
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:21:15 -0500
From: Tad Burnett <tburnett_at_vermontel.net>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] dos on a winxp machine
Gates William BASIC still runs under XP.. Do .BAT files still run ???
You can create .BAT files with BASIC and then exe them from the primary
..BAT file... That saves you from ever having to drop back to DOS prompt
which will dump you back to XP...
That was a trick I learned on the PCjr running ramdisk and not wanting to
goto DOS because that was on very slow floppy on the jr....
I used it with W98 to do some of my old DOS stuff but I don't know if it
still works with XP... but I bet it does...
Tad N1QAG
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:25:53 -0500
From: "Danny Messano" <danny_at_messano.net>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] dos on a winxp machine
I think virtualization is the way to go. Before long, you won't be able to
run DOS and 16-Bit Windows apps on a current version of Windows, and
virtualization like VMware or M$ VirtualPC will be needed. It's time to
think ahead.
I have several Windows 3.1 VMs I have built for programming old Motorola
Radios, and it works pretty well, using surprisingly little CPU.
M$ VirtualPC is free on Windows platforms, and if you make a FreeDOS image
with APRSDOS on it, anyone could run it.
VMware is not free, but the player to play the VM's one creates, is free.
You could do the same here with FreeDOS and APRSdos, and even run the image
under Linux since there is a VMware player for Linux as well.
I keep wondering why there hasn't been a flood of APRS related VMs floating
around yet. JavAPRSsrvr IGATE VMs, APRSDOS VMs, Xastir VMs, etc.
Danny Messano
KE4RAP
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:26:23 -0800
From: "Cap Pennell" <cap_at_cruzio.com>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] dos on a winxp machine
I can still run APRSdos from within WindowsXPpro just fine. (Granted, my
hard-drive's file system is still FAT32 instead of NTFS.)
73, Cap KE6AFE
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:41:42 +0200
From: Tapio Sokura <oh2kku_at_iki.fi>
Subject: Re: [aprssig] Is my PIC-E transmitting incorrect LAT tracking
data
EXT-Maetta, John wrote:
>Is my TAPR PIC-E is transmitting incorrect LAT data. My location is
>34.xxxxN, 120.xxxxW which is in grid CM94.
>
>The PIC-E is transmitting the following LAT data: 3xxxxx. Shouldn't it
>be sending Sxxxxx for a LAT? The APRS spec is a bit confusing but I
>think I can manualy decode MIC-E APRS packets correctly.
If you look at the APRS 1.01 specification PDF file pages 43 and 44,
you'll see the following:
1) The first character of the destination field contains both the first
latitude digit (tens of degrees) and message bit A. Nothing more, nothing
less. Especially note that the N/S indicator is encoded in the 4th
character.
2) Thus for 30 degrees (north or south), the first character can be either
3, D, or S. The only difference between these is the message bit A, which
can be either zero, one (custom), or one (standard). A '3' says that the
message bit A is zero.
The mic-e message bit table on page 45 says that if message bit A is zero,
the possible messages are "committed", "special", "priority", "emergency"
or "custom" messages 4-6. So you probably have one of those messages
configured in your pic-e.
Tapio
------------------------------
Message: 16
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:41:59 -0800
From: Mark Fellhauer <sparkfel_at_qwest.net>
Subject: [aprssig] RE: dos on a winxp machine
At 08:35 PM 1/8/2007, Scott Miller wrote:
>There's a command shell, but keep in mind that it's not DOS. Windows
>hasn't had DOS under the hood in a long time, and the NT/2000/XP operating
>systems are vastly different inside, closer to something like VMS (to
>which it's at least distantly related) than any single-user, real-mode
>OS. They at least make an attempt at DOS compatibility, but you have to
>remember that there are many layers of abstraction between the DOS
>environment and the hardware now. DOS programs used to have direct access
>to pretty much everything in the machine, but that's not possible in a
>modern OS.
There's a lot of FUD and utter nonsense floating around the tech world
regarding Windows (XP) and DOS. XP has full DOS support and in fact works
better than Win95, Win98, Win2K, or WinME ever did with DOS programs in my
experience.
DOS PIF's are easy to set up. Why do you think autoexec.nt and config.nt
are for anyway? Use the Mode command to access com and printer ports (I
have yet to find a serial/printer port solution that doesn't work). Newer
sound cards/solutions may not support DOS, but that's no the fault of
Microsoft...(try VDMSound).
The last computer "expert" who told me "XP doesn't do DOS" had to eat his
words when I loaded Trunker on an XP machine, made a simple DOS PIF, set
the com ports, and started decoding Trunked Public Safety and controlling a
2nd scanner to RX the transmissions.
It doesn't matter if you're loading DOS or emulating DOS. It works.
73,
Mark
------------------------------
Message: 17
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:48:52 -0800
From: "Scott Miller" <scott_at_opentrac.org>
Subject: RE: [aprssig] RE: dos on a winxp machine
>regarding Windows (XP) and DOS. XP has full DOS support and in fact works
>better than Win95, Win98, Win2K, or WinME ever did with DOS programs in my
>experience.
It still can't emulate all of the direct hardware access - particularly
when it comes to graphics. I have plenty of old games around that I can't
play on my XP-based machines (X-COM, for example) because of the low-level
way in which they deal with the video card. Business apps are more likely
to work, but games have traditionally used every dirty trick in the book to
squeeze a little more performance out of the hardware, and that's where
support breaks down.
Scott
N1VG
------------------------------
Message: 18
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:53:18 -0800
From: "Stephen H. Smith" <wa8lmf2_at_aol.com>
Subject: [aprssig] dos on a winxp machine
cap_at_cruzio.com wrote:
>I can still run APRSdos from within WindowsXPpro just fine. (Granted, my
>hard-drive's file system is still FAT32 instead of NTFS.)
>73, Cap KE6AFE
As long as Windows is running, the disk file system isn't an issue. The
trouble comes if you want to bypass Windows (of whatever flavor) and boot
directly to "real" DOS from a floppy, CD-ROM or perhaps a USB flash drive.
Then NTFS volumes will become inaccessible.
And most USB-based hardware (such as USB-to-serial converters), will
disappear. [DOS never heard of USB, although SOME recent motherboard
BIOSes can now make some USB devices look like their earlier IDE or PS/2
predecessors.] Most BIOSes from the last two years or so support USB mice
and keyboards from DOS (they make them "look like" classic PS/2 devices).
A very few very recent motherboards will recognize external USB-connected
hard disks and floppies.
Further most modern "brain dead" printers, modems and soundcards dependent
on huge Windows-based drivers that emulate non-existent hardware won't work
at all from stand-alone DOS.
Win 95 and 98 had actual DOS underneath (The "DOS 7.1" that can actually be
used to format a bootable floppy or hard disk.) Unlike the last "official"
standalone DOS (Ver 6.22), "DOS 7.1" will work with today's huge hard
disks because it supports FAT32. [ The classic DOS 6.22 supported only
FAT16 and maxed out at 2GB per partition unless you used some sort of
3rd-party add-on disk manager. ]
By contrast, 32-bit Windows (WinNT, Win2K and WinXP) only have a DOS
emulator that produces a black window to type command lines. There is no
standalone DOS present that can be used to format a bootable floppy. Ever
notice the subtle naming difference between the "DOS Prompt" offered in the
Win95/98 "Accessories" group, and the equivalent "Command Prompt" offered
by Win2k and Xp? It's because there is no real DOS there. Although it
actually does a pretty good job of emulating DOS within Windows.
By the way, the native Win2K/XP equivalent of .BAT batch files is .CMD.
--
Stephen H. Smith wa8lmf (at) aol.com
EchoLink Node: 14400 [Think bottom of the 2M band]
Home Page: http://wa8lmf.com --OR-- http://wa8lmf.net
------------------------------
[duplicate]
------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
