Oops...the F1ULT Pascal WEB site. That's the one I meant.
Yes, a pointer to some other Web siteand that IS what the web is suppose to
do.
73,
Walt/K5YFW
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 3:42 PM
To:
I guess you must define unreliable.
I get bunches of E-Mail (including SPAM) all at one time...some dated 2-3 days
earlier.
I have a friend who lives 142 miles (as the crow flies) southeast of me. He
can send me an E-Mail at say 10:00 local asking me to get on 40M for a QSO at
15:00.
Hello,
When we were on MS-DOS PC (good old time HI), the clock (and all the hardware
in fact) was accessible by program (through registers) and it was easy to
determine the error of the PC cristal. I measured in several MS-DOS PC an error
of more or less 1/3000, which was not very good, but I
I have a friend who lives 142 miles (as the crow flies) southeast of me.
He can send me an E-Mail at say 10:00 local asking me to get on 40M for a
QSO at 15:00. Sometimes I don't get the E-Mail until well after the Skd
time...and sometimes not at all because his E-Mail service bounces his
Greeings All,
How hard is it to demodulate a 16QPSK as compaired to a 8QPSK signal.
And I have forgotten but does a 16QPSK signal will allow for 6 bites per cycle?
Looking back at some very old hand written notes I took at an HF conference at
Scott AFB, IL where Collins-Rockwell, Magnavox and
Bill,
I'm not talking about 2-3 minutes or even an hour for delivery...I'm talking
about 2-3 days and not being delivered at all or the destination server
rejecting my E-Mail.
Mis-configured server or mis-configured radio station still equals
unreliable/broken. Both are man-made conditions.
It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from Real Time
OS's than the older software. But even with a +/- 10 ms time (worst case
20 ms from one extreme to the other), wouldn't you just have to have a
little bit longer window than existing ARQ modes in order to succeed?
I think
It is kind of ironic that MS-OS and Linux-OS are further from Real Time
OS's than the older software.
Where is this data found?
Is documented as true of all distributions of Linux
or only the more popular and bloated (RedHat, SUse,
Mandriva, etc)?
What about Apple?
But even with a +/- 10
I think this thread is about dead.
WHAT WE KNOW AT THIS MOMENT:
A computer will not work for a fast ARQ mode because
every time it does anything else that timing link is
lost.
FIX:
If you would like to play the AQR modes better get
yourself some hardware (TNC) .
Need a Digital mode
That's not true, John. SCS multimode controllers do a fine job with
Pactor-2 and Pactor-3, both of which utilize ARQ. These protocols are
implemented in software running on a computer -- one of the 68K
variants, as I recall.
The impediment to running ARQ protocols on Windows PCs is the absence
I have a P 2 3 TNC.
Dave are you telling me that software is doing that same thing
and just as good? If so I have not seen a thing being said about
with any of the QSO's that I have had in the past.
At 09:08 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
That's not true, John. SCS multimode controllers do a fine
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988
Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out
any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right?
At 09:45 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
Yes. Open up your P 2 3 TNC, and you will find a microprocessor.
That microprocessor
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
followed the discussions, you know that ARQ modes not only can, but have
already been implemented on sound card modes in at least two cases. One
for Linux and one for Windows.
Many of us have done all the hardware stuff
Dave,
I am comparing current mainstream versions to the older ones. Examples
would be Windows XP vs. MS-DOS also, any of the popular Linux versions
whether Fedora or Ubuntu or SUSE vs. the early versions. There are RT
versions as you note, but they are not used for typical end users who
want
At 10:05 PM 9/14/2006, you wrote:
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
followed the discussions, you know that ARQ modes not only can, but have
already been implemented on sound card modes in at least two cases. One
for Linux and one for Windows.
Yes I
AA6YQ comments below
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I knew that.
So is my AEA TNC that I got back in 1988
Bottom line - there is *NO* computer running software with out
any hardware (TNC) that will do the same right?
Wrong. SCAMP, a
By definition Hardware solutions do not include dedicated
microprocessors. They use non-programmable control mechanisms, e.g.
finite state machines, stepping relays, or cam shafts.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John,
Not
That's fine, Rick. The issue is specialization, not regression.
Its not obvious to me why one couldn't build a desktop Linux around a
realtime kernel.
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dave,
I am comparing current mainstream
Yes, and he'll be a European.
From: KV9U [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: ARQ sound card modes
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:05:40 -0500
John,
Not only is this not dead ... it is only the begining. If you have
19 matches
Mail list logo
