Dave,
I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of
priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter)
results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs.
Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is
@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:18 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Dave,
I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of
priority
: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:28 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
, Dave AA6YQ [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Hi Jose,
Happy New Year to you and your family.
Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list).
As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought
out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with
a
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti-Winlink regurgitation is an
unavoidable evil...
Going to the facts: Kantronics did not implement memory ARQ for Pactor
in their early KAM's. So, they were inferior to the real stuff, the SCS
Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ?
It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble,
NOT the net or system.
Strange that this is so difficult to understand after hundreds of
debates that often turn in to endless circular arguments. :(
: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Sorry, but I have to ask; What is wrong with some of you pactor guys ?
It is the QRM from untended stations that cause the main trouble,
NOT the net or system.
Strange that this is so difficult
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
jurisdiction. Seems that this anti
, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com
, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Jose A. Amador [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have
,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S
At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote:
I would argue that the fuel for this is the
irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in
unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect
whether or not the frequency is locally clear
not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
characterics. In attended operation,
- Original Message -
From: Roger J. Buffington [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
snip
Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company
the name of which escapes me.
It was Pac-Com. - I had one of those early units
Charles Brabham wrote:
- Original Message - From: Roger J. Buffington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
snip Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one
American company the name of which
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Hi Rick,
Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.
Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless
I am
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Well,
I have a KAM controller with PACTOR 1. I bet you have not even seen
one.
You know, Demetre, I am getting tired of remarks like that from you. I
have attempted to reply to your posts with courtesy, but you seem bent
upon returning courtesy with bad manners.
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:08 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
Sorry if I made you upset Roger, but you insist on something you do
not know very well and always try to prove that the other guy is
wrong. If I was a bit harsh with you it was for that reason and I did
not mean to offend you.
No worry, Demetre. You did not upset
Demetre,
It is possible that SCS did license Pactor at a later time. It seems to
me that other companies tried to implement the memory ARQ function with
limited success. This feature is not necessary for Pactor to operate,
but it does help greatly with weak signals. However, if a company
Demetre,
You really need to end this conjecture about Pactor unless you have some
new information that Pactor is proprietary like Pactor 2 and Pactor 3.
If you check on the internet, you will find that Pactor is an open
protocol, while P2 and P3 use proprietary technology controlled by one
20 matches
Mail list logo
