Tooner wrote: > --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> ... but what it does and how it does. >> ... And certainly MultiPSK does its stuff WELL >> ... as a peek at its specs will show you. > > How about telling us what that 'stuff' is, as you are more familiar > than I? Specifics would be nice. > >> It is not the first time that Vista FAILS with an otherwise working >> software. > > True, but the applications need to keep up with the operating system, > not the other-way-around. That's one of the reasons Windows has so > many issues, the demand for backwards compatibility. If Microsoft > would just start over, from scratch, and offer no recourse for older > apps, then we'd have an O/S closer to what a modern PC can really do.
Yes, the 640 kB of RAM "original sin", the 528 MB HD limit...etc. > 20 years ago, that would be the kiss-of-death for a company. But as > ingrained as Windows O/S is, I imagine it would hardly dent their > pocketbook. Anyway, we'll be booting to the Internet before long and > what operating system your computer will run will be a moot point. It depends on where you are. I have no Internet at home, and we have a "bastillized" proxy at work with just the imprescindible ports open. Here at home, it is much easier to sync my PC using Clock tuned to CHU, thanks to Patrick, who accepted my suggestion and it is a superb way to sync my PC to UTC. CHU has an almost bulletproof protocol in its time packets, far better than WWV, and still better than WWVB here. Of course, that is my specific situation, and every case may be different. I used DOS until 1998, then jumped to Linux in a very resource deprived 486, and later began using Win98 and Linux in a dual boot Pentium. I still keep many of my old DOS programs, and quiet a few still work under XP or DOSEMU on Linux. Here, it is not easy to keep up with hardware, as you may already know. There, is so far, no NEED for Vista, as XP or other OS's may do well too. Windows has had a bad influence on the Linux world. What was an extremely light OS has become quite heavy too when using a GUI, specially with KDE. > Meanwhile, I can still do many things in seconds that takes even a > skilled operator quite a bit longer in a Linux box. (For instance, > try setting up dual monitors in Linux!) That is another specific situation... > Yes, Windows isn't the most stable operating system. It is however, > the most usable for the masses. No matter how skilled you are at your > preferred O/S, you'll more likely sit down to a Windows PC vs any > other flavor. Except maybe at your personal station/s. Like everything else in this world, everything has its pros and its cons...I will not hesitate to use Linux for a server...forget about service packs, and antivirus. To me, those are the two most burdensome activities to keep a server going. And it seems, so far, that it is preferable to migrate a server to another machine rather than upgrading a live server. Generally, a good server dies when its hardware dies. I write from a dual boot machine. I used to run a packet BBS, and Linux is better for that, no doubt. It is also easier for remote administration, on a bandwidth restricted link. > Anyway, that's not really the point here. I'm just trying to nail > someone down with specifics of what MultiPSK offers that would make > someone reconsider what they're currently using. Well, one of the most useful features of MultiPSK is its panoramic decoders. I have a vague memory that Digipan does it too, but I have not used Digipan in ages... Usually I would like to have some more free time, and I work a lot from home...it is easier than the hectic environment in my University. I can be working in a new presentation with MultiPSK working in the background and check periodically if a friend or a needed DX pops up. > Again, no one has given specifics yet to what MultiPSK does better > than other digital software? For the most common modes, it translates > about as well as any other. What, besides the different modes > available and costs, keeps one a die-hard MultiPSK fan? Well, Sholto has done an extensive description, and I use MultiPSK mostly for PSK and Olivia, and sometimes, exceptionally, use one of the not so common modes. I have used Voice ocassionally on semi local QSO's on 40 meters, and it works very well, far better print than PSK or RTTY, while being slightly faster than Olivia. (Nevertheless, I keep an old version of Mix for decoding some of the weird combinations of Olivia that Multipsk does not cover. But I have not used it recently...) I have used its oscilloscope and spectrum analyzer to capture waveforms and signals from the real life to include in my work, ocassionally. A real voice waveform is so peculiar that I like my students to take that into account when they have to deal with modulators. Or when evaluating why I had so many difficulties receiving WWV, I realized that the 100 Hz tone was 40+ dB below the 1 kHz tone on my SSB radio, and so, becomes read difficult to decode. Then Patrick accepted the suggestion and developed another offset decoder for Clock, on which there is no need to tune WWV to zero beat but rather, tune it, say, 900 Hz away and decode one of the 100 Hz sidebands, which become much stronger then, being on the flat plateau of my filter, typically around -20 dB compared to the "1 kHz carrier". For me, accurate time is important, or I could not use WSJT, or document the recent HAARP moonbounce test. FAX may be ocassionally useful to me, when I want to have some more info about a neighboring hurricane in the summer, specially when meteorologists do not agree and my home is in the uncertainty zone. I ocassionally use MultiPSK on SSTV also. About weird modes: I tried Chip with a friend, and it did not work well in our path. Olivia or MFSK does a LOT better. I have also ocassionally used Hellschreiber, specially, to pick a CQ or monitor some ongoing QSO's. But I seldom call in Hellschreiber. The waterfall picture may help to boost the QSO rate on weird modes, at least, I have found it useful. I have rediscovered some "remnants" of 300 baud packet activity on 20 and 30 meters using MultiPSK, which has allowed me to connect to their nodes and mailboxes. It is so much easier to net in using the waterfall.... My old TNC has been sitting on the bottom of a drawer for quite some time already. I only keep my PTC-II at hand, but don't use it very often lately, either. So, actually, I use MultiPSK as a "swiss knife", because it has the way to tune in on much of the activity in my environment, and suit many of my needs. Hope this gives you a perspective of why I use MultiPSK. 73, Jose, CO2JA __________________________________________ Participe en Universidad 2008. 11 al 15 de febrero del 2008. Palacio de las Convenciones, Ciudad de la Habana, Cuba http://www.universidad2008.cu
