| |
PA2AGA > HDDIG 10.11.99 13:35l 228 Lines 7728 Bytes #-9689 (0) @ EU
BID : HD_99_286C
Read: GUEST
Subj: HamDigitalDigest 99/286C
Path: DB0AAB<DB0ZKA<DB0LX<DB0RBS<DB0SEL<DB0ZDF<DB0AIS<DB0IZ<ON6AR<PI8HWB<
PI8HGL<PE1NMB<EA7URC<PE0MAR<PI8VNW
Sent: 991110/0926Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:14899 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:HD_99_28
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : HDDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA22898 ; Wed, 10 Nov 99 08:16:40 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00016787 ; Wed, 10 Nov 99 07:01:49 MET
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 99 07:00:19 MET
Message-Id: <hd_99_286C>
From: pa2aga
To: hd_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: HamDigitalDigest 99/286C
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Do you have an estimation of the ratio between stations using off-the-shelf
Japanese transceivers and those using faster "kit" designs?
(the T7F is 9k6 as well...)
>BTW, the limitation to 76k8 here is only due to the ancient RMNC controllers
>which cannot do more than 76k8 even if overclocked to 16Mhz. The modems
>and radios for 6cm can easily do some 100kbit/s. I suspect that if the
>new RMNC design does not come very soon now, people will move to
>other designs such as the new PCISCC card by dg1kjd which is said to
>support some 10 MBit/s.
Interesting :-)
Years ago, when I still visited the yearly Frankfurt/Darmstadt packet
meetings, I always discussed with the locals about that. Our standpoint
has always been "use PC hardware at the node. you get free upgrades in
performance over the years, and you can't beat the price/performance".
Theirs was always "PC hardware is not reliable, consumes too much power,
is too large" etc.
So our nodes have been running on PCs with ISA SCC cards for years, usually
without problem. Different people have been developing software for it,
and BBS/NODE systems can run on a single machine if you like.
Theirs have been running 6809s and we have always read that a new card
is just around the corner.
So maybe it is coming our way now? :-)
BTW: I got an e-mail recently from someone asking about the availability of
a PCI SCC card (presumably because he has no ISA slots available). Is that
card available commercially?
Rob
--
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| Rob Janssen pe1chl@amsat.org | WWWhome: http://www.pe1chl.demon.nl/ |
| AMPRnet: rob@pe1chl.ampr.org | AX.25 BBS: PE1CHL@PI8WNO.#UTR.NLD.EU |
+----------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 18:32:05 GMT
From: g3pho@qsl.nospam.net
Subject: Help with RFC
On Thu, 4 Nov 1999 10:22:29 -0800, "Cathryn Mataga"
<cathryn@junglevision.com> wrote:
>I'm trying to figure out myself, approximately, what kind of
>test equipment I'd need to play around with this stuff -- and not
>be totally frustrated.
>
>My brother picked up an old signal generator. And
>that seems to work. But, that's the extent of our microwave
>equipment right now. So, we've started a bit of a collection
>here -- though obviously this is kind of a long term project.
>New test equipment for this kind of stuff looks really expensive
>everywhere I look -- and I don't quite have the confidence to
>buy up the used stuff, not knowing what is what. And, even
>the used stuff is a pretty good hunk of change.
>
>Is there any like common wisdom, on what to look for, on the
>used market, and what to pay for it? Where do you start
>with the 'test equpment' issue?
>
To get going on microwaves you dont need a lot of pricey test gear!
Take a look at my amateur microwaves website.. you'll find a lot of
information, including a beginner's section, plus links to other
microwave pages.
<remove "nospam" from header if replying by email>
73 from Peter, G3PHO
***********************************************
Editor: RSGB Microwave Newsletter
Microwave Homepage (The World above 1000MHz):
http://www.g3pho.free-online.co.uk/microwaves/
and at http://www.qsl.net/g3pho
mailto:g3pho@rsgb.co.uk
***********************************************
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 08:35:37 -0000
From: "Mike" <m.j.willis@rl.ac.uk>
Subject: Help with RFC
Steve Sampson <ssampson@usa-site.net> wrote in message
news:s2cbanpi3e647@corp.supernews.com...
> I think once you put the word out, that you are looking for a piece
> of test equipment, the word gets around. Someone may have an
> older piece that they are thinking about upgrading. Another way is
> to go to government surplus sales (DRMO). Here at Tinker we have
> a sale every couple of weeks
You really are living in a different world ! Or perhaps should not post
this to UK.radio.amateur.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 06:16:09 -0500
From: "Michael J. Donohue" <mdonohue@renc.igs.net>
Subject: Jnos (Autoexec.Nos)
Hi:
I recently had a computer (HDD) crash and lost my jnos files. I
cant seem to get Jnos to work properly with my PK-232MBX. Does anyone
have a working copy of Jnos that uses the PK-232 that I could get a
copy of the Auotexec.Nos. Tnx for any help you can provide.
73 De Mike
VE3DMJ
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:25:56 -0800
From: "alhg66" <alhg66@hotmail.com>
Subject: unreal deal
Musicmatch is doing the unreal deal - if you bought the realjukebox, they'll
give you their upgrade for free. interesting timing with all the real
bashing that's been going on...you just go to the website and walk through
it. I'm willing to try it out if they are that sure that theirs is better,
what have you got to lose.
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 12:45:30 -0600
From: W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org>
Subject: WTD PTC-II Pactor Controller
Gilbert Baron wrote:
> (PACTOR II) would be a lot more popular if it were not a proprietary mode
that the
> owner refuses to license. It is ludicrous to by a new TNC for every mode
> that comes along. For that reason, pactor, gtor , etc are useless.
Is the earlier version of PACTOR proprietary? Aren't there a lot of
boxes that do PACTOR? Were they licensed or not?
--
73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
>.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 1999 14:47:11 -0500
From: Bob Lewis <aa4pb@erols.com>
Subject: WTD PTC-II Pactor Controller
Most if not all of the multimode controllers do the original Pactor (now
called Pactor-I). The SCS PTC-II is also backward compatible with
Pactor-I (as a matter of fact all links are established in Pactor-I
before changing over to Pactor-II if both ends are capable).
>.
------------------------------
Date: 08 Nov 1999 12:42:20 -0800
From: Doug Faunt N6TQS +1-510-655-8604 <faunt@netcom.com>
Subject: WTD PTC-II Pactor Controller
W6RCecilA <Cecil.A.Moore@IEEE.org> writes:
>
> Gilbert Baron wrote:
> > (PACTOR II) would be a lot more popular if it were not a proprietary mode
that the
> > owner refuses to license. It is ludicrous to by a new TNC for every mode
> > that comes along. For that reason, pactor, gtor , etc are useless.
>
> Is the earlier version of PACTOR proprietary? Aren't there a lot of
> boxes that do PACTOR? Were they licensed or not?
> --
> 73, Cecil, W6RCA http://www.bigfoot.com/~w6rca
As I understand it, the original version of PACTOR was proprietary,
and other commercial vendors paid licensing fees. K6STI had a version
of RITTY that did PACTOR, which cost more then a later version without
that feature, which he ascribed to the licensing fee, and there's even
a version that's freeware, TERMAN, for noncommercial use.
IIRC, the claim is that no other general purpose hardware bit can do
all that PACTOR II needs, and apparently neither can a soundcard
implementation, or even an EVM56K version.
73, doug
>.
------------------------------
End of Ham-Digital Digest V99 #286
******************************
You can send in your contribution to this digest by
sending an e-mail to: hd-group@pa2aga.ampr.org
or (via BBS-net) to: hdaga@pi8vnw.#zh2.nld.eu
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
