Chris,
What is your view on using pipelined programming such as what was used
in the SCAMP mode to get around this issue with moving the ACK to the
next packet. The main penalty is latency for the user, but it seems
manageable.
73,
Rick, KV9U
Chris Jewell wrote:
Suppose you're using your
KV9U writes:
Chris,
What is your view on using pipelined programming such as what was used
in the SCAMP mode to get around this issue with moving the ACK to the
next packet. The main penalty is latency for the user, but it seems
manageable.
I haven't read any detailed specs of the
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 2:28 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] New to Digital HF -- PACTOR setup and
hardware maybe needed???
KV9U writes:
Chris,
What is your view on using
Pactor and Amtor use ARQ mode.
Because of this timing a computer WILL NOT
keep up with the TNC equipped station.
I did run some test about 3 years ago and the
computer only station on a AMTOR / PACTOR link
could only do about 43% of what the TNC equipped
station did.
At 05:35 PM 8/26/2006, you
John Becker wrote:
Pactor and Amtor use ARQ mode.
Because of this timing a computer WILL NOT
keep up with the TNC equipped station.
I did run some test about 3 years ago and the
computer only station on a AMTOR / PACTOR link
could only do about 43% of what the TNC equipped
station did.
It was on a linux system
But that does not matter.
The problem is EVERY time the computer thinks
what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so
is the link.
At 09:53 AM 8/27/2006, you wrote:
Have you tried it with an up-scale sound card on a
computer equipped with both a fast processor
On Sun, 27 Aug 2006 22:02:33 -0500, John Becker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It was on a linux system
But that does not matter.
The problem is EVERY time the computer thinks
what do I need to do now - the timing is lost and so
is the link.
???
now, I am not a geek for computers, but my Perl mobo has
