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. :( LA5VNA Jose A. Amador skrev: > > > 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 > Z-80 Pactor Controller. > > PacComm sold a Pactor controller, but they had marginal profits in > general, as they did not offsource the production of their units, as AEA > did. > > Jose, CO2JA > > --- > > Demetre SV1UY wrote: > > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com > <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>, "Roger J. Buffington" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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. Please stop that. > >> In actual fact, I **own** a KAM unit. Used it for GTOR. It was > >> horrible for Pactor 1 in my opinion; quite inferior to my old PK232 > (my > >> first TNC) and in no way comparable to the SCS PTC-II which I also > used > >> to own. GTOR was very unreliable, and is utterly dead and gone. > >> > >> Someone else on this forum has corrected my statement that the KAM > > units > >> lacked memory-arq. OK, fine. My experience with the unit, as I > >> mentioned above, was that they were buggy and did not do well for > > Pactor. > >>> As for reverse engineering, I do not know about that, but if they did > >>> that, this is one more reason for the failure of their product. I > >>> know that SCS did license PACTOR 1 though > >> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company > >> the name of which escapes me. They were not a business success, and I > >> think they were actually just selling re-labelled SCS modems rather > > than > >> different modems using licensed Pactor protocol. I do not believe that > >> any amateur radio manufacturer ever succeeded in negotiating a > straight > >> license with SCS for Pactor. This leads to the inference that SCS > > wants > >> to sell hardware, not merely enjoy licensing fees. I may be mistaken > >> about that, but that is not an unreasonable deduction. > >> > >> de Roger W6VZV > >> > > > > 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. > > > > Happy New Year and I hope the New Year will be better for us all. I > > hope we will all be happier with the FCCs outcome whatever this maybe. > > > > You know, we can all get along without any arguments. Every mode and > > every taste has it's place in the amateur bands. There are no better > > and no worse modes. The best ones are the ones we like. So you can do > > your thing and I can do mine and as I said before, the civilized world > > is supposed to be tolerant. > > > > 73 de Demetre SV1UY > > > > P.S. enough said!!! > > __________________________________________ > > Participe en Universidad 2008. > 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. > Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba > http://www.universidad2008.cu <http://www.universidad2008.cu> > >
