| |
ZL3AI > APRDIG 04.11.03 15:09l 289 Lines 11156 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 2267-ZL3AI
Read: GUEST
Subj: TAPR Digest, Nov 02, 1/3
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FOR<DB0SIF<DB0NHM<DB0ERF<DB0FBB<DB0GOS<ON0AR<WB0TAX<SP7MGD<
VK3TE<ZL2BAU<ZL2BAU<ZL3VML
Sent: 031104/1232Z @:ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC #:12235 [Chch-NZ] FBB7.00i $:2267-ZL3AI
From: ZL3AI@ZL3VML.#80.NZL.OC
To : APRDIG@WW
TAPR APRS Special Interest Group Digest for Sunday, November 02, 2003.
1. RE: KPC3+
2. RE: KPC3+
3. KPC-3 jumpers
4. RE: KPC3+
5. RE: KPC3+
6. RE: KPC3+
7. RE: KPC3+
8. RE: IC-746 on APRS/VHF Packet Revisited:
9. Well, it didn't work...
10. RE: KPC3+
11. RE: KPC3+
12. Re: Well, it didn't work...
13. RE: IC-746 on APRS/VHF Packet Revisited:
14. Re: Well, it didn't work...
15. Deluo GPS question
16. Re: Deluo GPS question
17. RE: Deluo GPS question
18. Re: Deluo GPS question
19. Re: Well, it didn't work...
20. RE: KPC3+
21. Re: Well, it didn't work...
22. RE: KPC3+
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: KPC3+
From: Reid Crowe <kc0idi@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 21:16:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Message-Number: 1
What I am saying is when they stopped making the KPC-3 they stopped making
the firmware chips. Doesn't that make sense?
Scott Miller <scott@3xf.com> wrote:
Try buying firmware for a KPC-3. I wouldn't expect them to keep developing
NEW firmware for it, but why not provide what already exists?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: KPC3+
From: "Scott Miller" <scott@3xf.com>
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 22:00:47 -0800
X-Message-Number: 2
'Making' the firmware chips I can do in two minutes in my garage. A large
portion of the user population that'd need the chips either has the
equipment or has access to the equipment required to burn an appropriate
EPROM. I'd be happy if they just put the binary image on their website for
users to download. IMHO, that's the responsible way to desupport a
product - put the latest firmware, manuals, drivers, and so on where users
can find it, with a prominent notice that no support will be provided.
Anyway, I don't particularly care what they do - I don't consider
Kantronics, or any of the other commercial TNC vendors for that matter, to
be an option for future digipeater deploments. Not when I can deploy a
single-board PC for the same price and use digi_ned and manage it remotely.
Scott
N1VG
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: KPC-3 jumpers
From: Earl Needham <needhame1@yucca.net>
Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 07:39:24 -0700
X-Message-Number: 3
Can someone tell me what jumper needs to be moved so my old KPC-3 will
operate with discriminator output instead of regular "speaker" output?
Alternatively, can someone point me to an online manual for the thing?
Thanks,
Earl
Back to work today...
Earl Needham, KD5XB, Clovis, New Mexico DM84jk
KD5XB-2>APW251,PCSAT-1%:=3425.83N/10313.55W-PHG7150/WinAPRS 2.5.1
-EARL_CLOVIS -251-<630>
SETI@Home: 11053WU/7.17yrs!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: KPC3+
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:08:38 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 4
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Reid Crowe wrote:
>I was able to buy new firmware for a regular KPC9612 (not plus) three
>days ago. I went from 5.2 to 8.2. Yah there is the new 9.0 but when
>did they stop makeing the 9612 regular and go to the plus?
We began designing PCsat back in 1998 or so and the KPC9612+ was available
then. I'm not sure how long it had been out...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: KPC3+
From: Bob Bruninga <bruninga@usna.edu>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 10:32:04 -0500 (EST)
X-Message-Number: 5
On Sat, 1 Nov 2003, Mike Yetsko wrote:
>If you want something more relevant, consider that almost ALL the new
>'technology' in the last number of years is 'hardware sales', and the
>software is considered the vehicle to the hardware.
>
>How many items in the last few years CANNOT be upgraded?
Wow! I'd say, just about anything over 10 years old cannot be upgraded...
The KPC-3 by the way is what?, almost 15 years old???
Back then the typical HAM phone line modem was doing what? 9600 baud? Try
going back to HAYES and asking them for a fimrmware upgrade to your old
modem..
>And how many people charge for upgrades anymore, as long as the item
>itself is still 'current'?
The KPC-3 is not current. The KPC-3+ was introduced over 6 years ago..?
>I just got a free upgrade to Palm OS 3.5 for my Palm IIIc and Palm V.
It didnt even exist when the KPC-3 was made.
>My CD burner? Just flashed new firmware in to handle bigger media this
>last spring.
Didnt exist back then.
>My laptops? Well, I have a number, and I can say that the ones that are
>still current I can go to the IBM web site and get the 'latest and
>greatest' firmware.
THe KPC-3 is not current....
>In EVERY SINGLE CASE the upgrades were FREE. Not even a service
>charge. FREE. As in ZERO. Just my effort to do so.
But your "cases" are totally irrelevant.
>Oh, there IS one item I upgraded that was a charge. My K2. But then
>the upgrade was a new processor. And it was, in my opinion, reasonably
>priced.
The KPC-3+ is not only a new processor but a totally new architecture
(from 8080 based to 6800 based). The MODEM chip in the KPC-3 HAS NOT BEEN
AVAIALBLE FOR OVER 6 YEARS! It is one of the main things that probably
forced the new design...
Anyone who makes hardware knows that NO DESIGN can last. They are totally
at the mercy of the CHIP MARKETPLACE. Chips come and go. Designs have to
change. Any one who thinks about it must realize that it is not cost
effective paying a software programmer say a half-years salary to write
upgraded software for something that is obsolete. Duh... and then be
expected to give it away FREE! Geeze...
>But then there's Kantronics. We're not talking a service charge here.
>We're talking a MAJOR FEE.
And how else do you pay the programmer for the time it takes to develope
upgrades for old stuff that no one is buying?
>"IF" I had known that it would have taken me $50 to upgrade the
>firmware, I wouldn't have paid NEAR the $50 for the hardware.
Now I think you are getting close to figuring out where the problem is..
But its still chepater than a new unit..
>They are in a dream world. A greedy dream world. And when they
>wake up, they probably won't want to be in our (ie HAM) world at all,
>so I wouldn't be surprised it they just bail out eventually and leave
>everybody hanging...
I think maybe it is not Kantronics that is in a dream world. But I pitty
any manufacturer in the HAM radio market that has to do business with
the typical HAM we see complaining about why everything isnt free...
I do agree. I wouldnt be surprised when they bail out.
In fact, most of Kantronics business these days is probably commmercial.
And businesses understand the cost of doing business and don't whine about
everything...
Bob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: RE: KPC3+
From: "Mike Yetsko" <myetsko@insydesw.com>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:43:43 -0500
X-Message-Number: 6
>>But then there's Kantronics. We're not talking a service charge here.
>>We're talking a MAJOR FEE.
>
>And how else do you pay the programmer for the time it takes to develope
>upgrades for old stuff that no one is buying?
But... and this is just my opinion of the better way to go, you develope
your software to sell your hardware. When you have upgrades, you put them
out. If the upgrade takes hardware, or even custom software, then you
charge. But when the upgrade is 'just' firmware, then you put it out as
'minimal'. I'm not saying loose money, but don't try to make the same
margins that you already made the first time around and screw your original
customers.
It's almost as if Kantronics is saying the hardware is not the important
part, but you gotta pay the premium for the software.
Thing is, they have a pretty captive niche to themselves. If they were
in a 'competitive' arena, they would be no way they would stay there
pulling this stunt. In my opinion of course.
The days of software tied to hardware being the major marketing element
are over.
>>"IF" I had known that it would have taken me $50 to upgrade the
>>firmware, I wouldn't have paid NEAR the $50 for the hardware.
>
>Now I think you are getting close to figuring out where the problem is..
>But its still chepater than a new unit..
That's true, but only marginally. Thing is, even the older KPC-3 are an
incredibly good piece of hardware. I just feel really gouged on the
price.
And yes, it IS my fault. I should have investigated before I bought the
used KPC-3. Would I have done it if I had know 'up front' that the
upgrade would have been so expensive? (An upgrade, by the way,
that does NOT bring the unit up to current, but only to a 'newer' level,
and a level that seems to be required for a lot of APRS stuff...)
Probably. But to be honest, I sure would have been all over the net
FIRST to find out how difficult it is/was to get a copy of the image.
>>They are in a dream world. A greedy dream world. And when they
>>wake up, they probably won't want to be in our (ie HAM) world at all,
>>so I wouldn't be surprised it they just bail out eventually and leave
>>everybody hanging...
>
>I think maybe it is not Kantronics that is in a dream world. But I pitty
>any manufacturer in the HAM radio market that has to do business with
>the typical HAM we see complaining about why everything isnt free...
>I do agree. I wouldnt be surprised when they bail out.
I think they are already on the way out. At least of the HAM market.
People just don't want to pay those kinds of prices when they see 56K
phone modems for $19. And modems like USRobotics that had
commands in there to actually tie to simplex radio links, if people only
looked. But back then, the USRobotics modems (and most modems,
in general) were WAY up there in price. In a lot of cases, much more
than the KPC-3.
I think Kantronics just can deal with the reality that people expect the
price do drop like everything else, so they held on to every income
source they could for as long as they could. And, unfortunately, that
also gives the impression that when they DO drop, they will totally
drop out, and not offer even passive support.
Let's say they drop tomorrow. Totally out of the HAM market.
Do you think they would give away info to keep hams happy? OK,
maybe not a fair question, as there may be propriatary info involved...
But lets say someone goes through and figures out how to write their
OWN image for the KPC-3, like people did with the original TNCs.
I have ROM images here from a couple of sources for my first
couple of TNCs. Now the question becomes will Kantronics STILL
remain passive about distribution of that image or try to supress it?
And it doesn't even have to actually get to that point. I'm not even
asking Kantronics what they will do. But what will HAMs perceive
what they will do is the real question. Would someone like DED or
one of the other authors even take the time to develope for a
product line if they perceive that the manufacture might be that
aggressive about every buck they can from customers.
Mike
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
