| |
PA2AGA > PACDIG 03.03.99 03:06l 143 Lines 4781 Bytes #-9939 (0) @ EU
BID : PR_99_45A
Read: GUEST
Subj: PacketRadioDigest 99/45A
Path: DB0AAB<DB0KFB<DB0CZ<F6KFG<DB0PSC<DB0ACH<DB0PKE<PI8DRS<PI8DAZ<PI8GCB<
PI8HGL<PI8VNW
Sent: 990302/2329Z @:PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU #:32401 [HvHolland] FBB7.00g $:PR_99_45
From: PA2AGA@PI8VNW.#ZH2.NLD.EU
To : PACDIG@EU
Received: from pa2aga by pi1hvh with SMTP
id AA14796 ; Tue, 02 Mar 99 22:53:47 UTC
Received: from pa2aga by pa2aga (NET/Mac 2.3.67/7.5.3) with SMTP
id AA00012664 ; Tue, 02 Mar 99 22:23:38 MET
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 99 22:17:12 MET
Message-Id: <pr_99_45A>
From: pa2aga
To: pr_broadcast@pa2aga
Subject: PacketRadioDigest 99/45A
X-BBS-Msg-Type: B
Packet-Radio Digest Sun, 28 Feb 99 Volume 99 : Issue 45
Today's Topics:
HELP! Barker & Wilson, Inc. AM-141A/MRC Output 2kw
Why a TNC? (3 msgs)
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <Packet-Radio@UCSD.Edu>
Send subscription requests to: <Packet-Radio-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the Packet-Radio Digest are available
(by FTP only) from ftp.UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives/packet-radio".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
Loop-Detect: Packet-Radio:99/45
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 12:39:05 -0500
From: "Johnathon Q. Smith" <whereits@dot.com>
Subject: HELP! Barker & Wilson, Inc. AM-141A/MRC Output 2kw
I have this monster of a machine but I don't know how to operate it. I have
been assured that it is in working condition. I need information badly.
Please help if you can. This unit was used by the Army Signal Corps.
AMP AM-141A/MRC
Serial No. 13
Order No. 19624-PHILA-50
Barker & Wilson, Inc.
Upper Darby Penna.
Output 2 kw
Please e-mail any info you have. Thanks in advance
dveator1@twcny.rr.com
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 14:33:13 -0600
From: "Charles Brabham" <n5pvl@texoma.net>
Subject: Why a TNC?
Robin Gilks wrote in message <7b9dvl$kgh$1@news5.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
>Ok then smart arses...
>
>I've got eight links - five at 9600bps, one at 2400bps and two at 1200bps.
>
>How do I get the all singing and dancing Flexnet to drive this lot with an
>old 386 using Baycom modems or sound-cards?
You don't.
Use the stand-alone version for large multiport nodes. How about nodes with
up to 16 ports, capable of handling 10MB/hr or better? Hmmm?
73 DE Charles Brabham,
N5PVL @ N5PVL.#NTX.TX.USA.NOAM
http://www.texoma.net/~n5pvl
>.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 1999 18:35:10 -0000
From: "Robin Gilks" <g8ecj@gb7ipd.freeserve.co.uk>
Subject: Why a TNC?
Anders Lageras wrote in message ...
>Rob Kling <rkling@home.com> wrote:
>> Thats like saying that embedded systems are useless because the
>> technology has been around for 20 years. TCP/IP has been around that
>> long too, so have modems. I wonder what he would call the bios on his
>> CPU. The TNC is a very efficient device and its fundamental design is
>> alive in all sorts of new technology. Moreover, it fits into the
>> client/server model very well. It is one of the few devices in amateur
>> radio that has a CPU. I think this guy is selling the BayCom type
>> modems. The only reason I think you might want to use one would be cost.
>> Used PC's are so cheap and capable that you could turn them into a TNC
>> with a BayCom modem.
>A few years ago when the computers was not as good as to day was tncs
>needed. A computer could not handle a packet driver better or as good as
>the one a tnc could handle.
>But to day are the computers used for packet faster, they can handle a
>packet driver much better than the packet driver a ordinary tnc can
>handle. The cpu of a tnc is to slow for the packet drivers of today.
>There excists tncs with faster cpus, but they are for high speeds mainly
>tnc3 and tnc4 for example.
>
>This makes a ordinary tnc much less good working than a computer with a
>good apcket driver and a cheap modem. This is solved by the use of kiss
>or 6pack, when kiss is used doesn't it work very good at al.
>But to buy a tnc for this purpose is stupid.
>
>To day are there no need for tncs for speeds under 38k4, there are many
>different good hardwaresthat is cheaper and better.
>Like yam, different scc cards, the baycom modems etc.
>
>So the situatioin is differrent to day.
>The here are very few people who really need a low speed tnc.
>
>Also for pc based nodes bbses etc are tncs history!
>To use a old 386 or 486 computer for then packet driver and maybe a node
>will work much better than any tncs. The can the comptuer be connected to
>the bbs computer via a serial link etc.
>
Ok then smart arses...
I've got eight links - five at 9600bps, one at 2400bps and two at 1200bps.
To be continued in digest: pr_99_45B
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
