Re: *****SPAM***** Re: [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet

[Bill Ayer]

Alan,

Of course that goes away if you purchase the license.  I enjoy the ability to 
go from soundcard modes to the TNC within the same program.

Logger32 freeware has a terminal window that that works great but with fewer 
soundcard modes. Certainly worth checking out for all it's great features.

Bill
- Original Message - 
  From: Alan Jones 
  To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, July 04, 2008 6:57 PM
  Subject: *SPAM* Re: [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet


  Bill Ayer wrote:
  > 
  > 
  > I use MixW. Takes a bit to set up, but you can get it to work just the 
  > way you want with macros.
  > 
  > 
  > - Original Message -
  > *From:* Alan Jones 
  > *To:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
  > 
  > *Sent:* Friday, July 04, 2008 11:09 AM
  > *Subject:* [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet
  > 
  > Can someone on the list recommend a good terminal program that I can
  > use
  > with my AEA PK-232MBX TNC? Currently I am using HyperTerminal version
  > 5.1. I don't like the annoying window box at the bottom of the screen.
  > All I need is a basic dumb terminal. I have tried several terminal
  > programs written specifically for packet but I am not impressed. I
  > really don't want a fancy interface. All I need is the basics.
  > Thanks in
  > advance for any help.
  > 

  Hi Bill,
  I used MixW briefly for a while but I didn't really know much about it. 
  The reason I quit using it was because of the "not registered" time 
  delay whenever I switched modes.

  Alan
  -- 
  W8OAJ - Chaplain (CPT) O. Alan Jones, USAR - Fort Bliss, TX
  http://exwn8jef.googlepages.com/home
  http://w8oaj.blogspot.com



   


--



  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 8.0.134 / Virus Database: 270.4.5/1533 - Release Date: 7/3/2008 7:19 
PM

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[kc4cop996]

Darn if I can find on the MixW Download page. Learning Contest is in 
beta helped but the link that Peter (K1PGV) posted helped a lot more.

Thanks to all for your help. During the several years that I have 
used MixW (admittedly sporadicly)I have yet to find a central 
download website.

Dick Z., kc4cop





--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, w4lde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Contestia is available in MixW, just download it from the main MixW 
web 
> site, it's an add on which I believe includes Olivia and RTTYM.
> 
> 73 de
> Ron W4LDE
> 
> kc4cop996 wrote:
> >
> > Patrick:
> >
> > Please advise the version of MixW that has "Contestia" as one of 
its
> > modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia.
> >
> > Dick Z., kc4cop
> >
> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> > , "Patrick Lindecker" 

> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello all,
> > >
> > > Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is
> > Contestia,
> > > which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It 
is
> > built on
> > > the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a
> > reduced set
> > > of characters.
> > >
> > > It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk
> > >
> > > 73
> > > Patrick
> > >
> > >
> > > - Original Message -
> > > From: "Benson" 
> > > To:  > >
> > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM
> > > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
> > >
> > >
> > > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> > , "Dave AA6YQ"  
wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK 
are
> > > > "better" than
> > > >> PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to
> > tune.
> > > >
> > > > I could care less about "mode envy" but I will say that I 
enjoy
> > both
> > > > Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band
> > conditions
> > > > than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking 
about
> > > > ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard 
to
> > tune
> > > > at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the 
software
> > > > implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and 
have a
> > lack
> > > > of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about
> > contesting.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 
> > > >
> > > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page 
at
> > > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 

> > > >
> > > > Check our other Yahoo Groups
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ 
> > 
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting 
> > 
> > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup 
> > 
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Vojtech Bubnik]

Contestia & RTTYM are implemented in PocketDigi also.
73, Vojtech OK1IAK, AB2ZA

Re: [digitalradio] Contestia in Mixw

[Andrew O'Brien]

On Sat, Jul 5, 2008 at 9:57 AM, Peter G. Viscarola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> You know, for such a great program, MixW really DOES feel like an orphan
> at times, doesn't it?? Grumble, grumble...
>
> de Peter K1PGV
>
>

Yes it  does Peter !

-- 
Andy K3UK
www.obriensweb.com
(QSL via N2RJ)

RE: [digitalradio] Contestia in Mixw

[Peter G. Viscarola]

>You need to find a specific DLL for Contestia in MixW.  I will  look
>for  the old link


You can download the Contestia DLL from:

http://mixw.net/beta/Modes.zip

It's been in "beta" since September 2005, apparently...  This version
appears to be a couple of days newer than the one on Jim Jaffe's web
site.

You know, for such a great program, MixW really DOES feel like an orphan
at times, doesn't it?? Grumble, grumble...

de Peter K1PGV

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[w4lde]

Contestia is available in MixW, just download it from the main MixW web 
site, it's an add on which I believe includes Olivia and RTTYM.

73 de
Ron W4LDE

kc4cop996 wrote:
>
> Patrick:
>
> Please advise the version of MixW that has "Contestia" as one of its
> modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia.
>
> Dick Z., kc4cop
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is
> Contestia,
> > which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is
> built on
> > the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a
> reduced set
> > of characters.
> >
> > It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk
> >
> > 73
> > Patrick
> >
> >
> > - Original Message -
> > From: "Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To:  >
> > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM
> > Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
> >
> >
> > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com 
> , "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are
> > > "better" than
> > >> PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to
> tune.
> > >
> > > I could care less about "mode envy" but I will say that I enjoy
> both
> > > Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band
> conditions
> > > than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about
> > > ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to
> tune
> > > at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software
> > > implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a
> lack
> > > of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about
> contesting.
> > >
> > >
> > > 
> > >
> > > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> > > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked 
> > >
> > > Check our other Yahoo Groups
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/ 
> 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting 
> 
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup 
> 
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>  

RE: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[r_lwesterfield]

You have must go to the MixW web site and download the DLL files for those
two modes.  Very easy installation.

 

Rick - KH2DF

 

  _  

From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Patrick Lindecker
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 3:49 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

 

Hello Dick,

Mixw has a "Contestia+RTTYM" DLL. The second mode (RTTYM) is not very 
interesting has you have the same sort of problem as with RTTY (you can 
switch from one set to another of characters and lose part of the text).

I don't know why these modes are not definively integered in Mixw.

73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: "kc4cop996" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]  net>
To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:12 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

> Patrick:
>
> Please advise the version of MixW that has "Contestia" as one of its
> modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia.
>
> Dick Z., kc4cop
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is
> Contestia,
>> which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is
> built on
>> the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a
> reduced set
>> of characters.
>>
>> It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk
>>
>> 73
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com>
>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM
>> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
>>
>>
>> > --- In digitalradio@ 
yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are
>> > "better" than
>> >> PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to
> tune.
>> >
>> > I could care less about "mode envy" but I will say that I enjoy
> both
>> > Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band
> conditions
>> > than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about
>> > ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to
> tune
>> > at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software
>> > implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a
> lack
>> > of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about
> contesting.
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>> > http://www.obriensw  eb.com/sked
>> >
>> > Check our other Yahoo Groups
>> > http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>> > http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/contesting
>> > http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensw  eb.com/sked
>
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups. 
yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 

 

Re: [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet

[Jose A. Amador]

Even when I have been away from packet for some time after being a sysop
for some twelve years, I have the feeling, but still not the certainty
that having MultiPSK to serve as a transparent dumb modem also would be
a good thing.

Creating a good packet terminal is not trivial, I used FBB for years
since version 5.13 and I don't see the need to duplicate the job that
Jean Paul Roubelat did. Maybe it still would accept improvements, but I
don't see much room for that. It is a job well done and hard to improve
when all bases seem well covered.

I used pure packet for some six years using BPQ or the Linux AX.25
engine, until I began using a PTC-II and after seeing what it does I
just quit HF packet, Pactor II being better by far, just by having a
more reliable transfer mechanism than classic packet. I was using FBB,
as JNOS 1.11 did not handle the PTC back then.

MultiPSK has a suite of modes that could still be useful and unique on
HF, and particularly, I like PAX for that, and maybe ALE 400 as
modulation / ARQ scheme could be useful too. Maybe others with a full
alphabet (required for compressed forwarding) could be useful. I really 
have not though much about the tiny details.

I am not sure about the situation beyond my area, but I certainly do
miss HF BBS's, as I had a fruitful and nice experience after all those
years.

Maybe I need some people to excuse me, but I never liked AGW, perhaps I
never did understand it well. I never used extra features of MixW, more
interested in its sound card modes, but they never meant an obstacle either.

I did use TeraTerm 2.3 and did like it too.

I don't know if others could agree with me, I am aware it is not too
easy to do, but maybe Patrick could do some research into making it
available as a dumb terminal using TCP/IP, KISS or host mode. Just
daydreaming by now, but, who knows? I am already used to get nice 
surprises from MultiPSK.

73,

Jose, CO2JA

---

Patrick Lindecker wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Multipsk can also be used for a sound-card terminal for Packet (with
> many other possibilities). But you can also use AGW Packet engine
> (and of course Mixw).
> 
> 73 Patrick

Re: [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello,

Multipsk can also be used for a sound-card terminal for Packet (with many 
other possibilities).
But you can also use AGW Packet engine (and of course Mixw).

73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: ""John Becker, WØJAB"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] dumb terminal software for packet


> Mixw is a bit of a overkill with all it's garbage for a terminal program
> to operate a PK232MBX TNC.
>
> I still have been using YAPP even if it's just a DOS program some
> 25 years old now.
>
>
>
> At 02:07 PM 7/4/2008, you wrote:
>>I use MixW.  Takes a bit to set up, but you can get it to work just the 
>>way you want with macros.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
> 

Re: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology

[Patrick Lindecker]

Hello Dick,

Mixw has a "Contestia+RTTYM" DLL. The second mode (RTTYM) is not very 
interesting has you have the same sort of problem as with RTTY (you can 
switch from one set to another of characters and lose part of the text).

I don't know why these modes are not definively integered in Mixw.

73
Patrick

- Original Message - 
From: "kc4cop996" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 4:12 AM
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology


> Patrick:
>
> Please advise the version of MixW that has "Contestia" as one of its
> modes. I am using version 2.18 and can find nothing on Contestia.
>
> Dick Z., kc4cop
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Lindecker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> Just to say that aside to Olivia, you have a mode which name is
> Contestia,
>> which is twice quicker than Olivia and almost as sensitive. It is
> built on
>> the same principle as Olivia but with different parameters and a
> reduced set
>> of characters.
>>
>> It is present at least on Mixw and Multipsk
>>
>> 73
>> Patrick
>>
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> From: "Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: 
>> Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2008 3:35 PM
>> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: New Hams and New Digital Technology
>>
>>
>> > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ"  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On what basis do you claim that Olivia, DominoEX, and MFSK are
>> > "better" than
>> >> PSK for ragchewing? Olivia is slow, and MFSK is difficult to
> tune.
>> >
>> > I could care less about "mode envy" but I will say that I enjoy
> both
>> > Olivia and MFSK16. Both are much more tolerant of poor band
> conditions
>> > than PSK and who cares if Olivia is slow - you're talking about
>> > ragchewing, not contesting. Too, I haven't found MFSK16 hard to
> tune
>> > at all. I'm using MultiPSK so perhaps it depends on the software
>> > implementation. I'm aware that both use more bandwidth and have a
> lack
>> > of panoramic decoding but again, we aren't talking about
> contesting.
>> >
>> >
>> > 
>> >
>> > Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
>> > http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>> >
>> > Check our other Yahoo Groups
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
>> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> 
>
> Announce your digital presence via our Interactive Sked Page at
> http://www.obriensweb.com/sked
>
> Check our other Yahoo Groups
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dxlist/
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/contesting
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/themixwgroup
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>