On Jul 21, 2008, at 6:08 PM, Ted wrote: > If by 'bloat' you mean obsolete coding encapsulated in legacy ham > applications then I agree with you.
Well, mostly I was thinking about what gets foisted off on us by Microsoft every time there is an "upgrade". > The difficulty in maintaining this position is when you try to do > PSK31, RTTY, Olivia and all the fun modes by rolling your own > 'modern' code. The amount of programming becomes undeniably > impossible for any one person, no matter how good a coder they maybe. Which is why we need a set of snap-together modems neatly integrated into the radio. Signal stream in, data stream out. No worrying about what it looks like because that is what the UI module is for and that isn't part of the modem. Now you just reuse the modem LEGOs. Want a better modem, drop it in. You don't need a whole new system or whole new application. > At some point you realize that the legacy applications, while > decidedly using obsolete coding methodology, are genuinely useful to > get your ham station on the air. Unless, like me, the bloody legacy applications DON'T WORK RIGHT! (Sorry, that's the frustration speaking -- oh yes, that IS a new PCI-E display adaptor next to the extra gig of RAM and the separate IEEE 1394 card. Thanks for asking.) > Whether contesting, or rag chewing, or experimenting or just > talking, the idea is to get the rig radiating RF and receiving RF > from like minded people around the world. I hope to get to that point someday! > Once you decide that you want to be ON THE AIR then you've got to > pick the kind of radio that will make you happy. There is no > denying that fully matured dial type radios are appealing, they are > the culmination of 100 years of evolution. They look cool and the > knobs feel wonderful. But the ceiling of their capabilities is > palpable when you 'click-tune' the bands with a Flexradio and > compare the experience with a dial radio. And there is nothing quite like those little spur spikes skipping hither and yon as one meanders through the spectrum. (That is something I am worried about because I think that is a function of the DDS LO.) > The feature set of this new style digital radio has approached and > surpassed, in some features, the capabilities of the older radios. > But the Flex IS limited. Not the radio as it is but the software > combined with the radio. Well, the radio is too but we have such a long way to go for the software to catch up that I think it will work for a bit longer yet. (I certainly hope so as I share your vision. I passed up the K3 for the '5K.) > There are so many interesting software applications that are coming > on the scene to combine with the digital Flexradio. I sure hope so! > So, does the Flexradio NEED a faster computer? Not necessarily. No, it needs a fast-enough computer. > But does the new breed of software, plus the legacy software, PLUS > the Flexradio need a faster computer? My experience is yes. Well, faster than what? My whole (subtle) point was that once your computer is fast enough, making it faster won't make things perform better ... until you add something else in that requires more CPU cycles. So if the display is updating fine, you are sampling at 192Ksps and there are no dropouts, and the other applications, e.g. MixW, are running without gaps in the waterfall and garble in the text, then paying for extra computer power doesn't make it run better. > To continue the automobile analogy; This is not premium gasoline in > an engine that needs regular. This is like opening up the airflow > of a bored and stroked engine. Putting a faster computer on a ham > station with a Flexradio is like adding a Blower and using an hand > grinder to open up the intake manifold. Well, not quite. It is more like FM -- once you have enough signal for full-quieting, more power won't make the signal any better. > AND, with all the information we've got on performance, it's like > checking the power curves on an engine by using a Dynamometer. But > unlike an expensive Dynamometer for engine tuning, we've got all > the measurements on our LCD screens. Even the skips and jumps in > the audio stream help us tune our computers. But if you want to stick with the automotive analogy, there is always the 65mph speed limit. :-) Some computer applications will consume (and perform better) the more CPU cycles you can throw at them. This is what the gamers are after since more power means more detailed rendering and faster display updates (frame rate). The Flex 5000 + PowerSDR needs a certain amount to do its job and it won't run faster, better, quieter, higher BDR, higher IP3, etc., with a faster computer. Now maybe that isn't valid when you decide to run CW Skimmer and try to suck in 200 simulataneous QSOs but even then, you just need enough. > Sorry, I got long winded here. I do appreciate your questions and > your line of thinking. It's helping me clarify what I like about > this process. And I am trying not to go over the top with being negative. Yes, I am seeing more warts than I expected (or wanted) but I also think that this is the only game in town if someone wants to do something new in ham radio. (But what about those spurs?) -- 73 de Brian, WB6RQN Brian Lloyd - brian HYPHEN wb6rqn AT lloyd DOT com _______________________________________________ FlexRadio Systems Mailing List [email protected] http://mail.flex-radio.biz/mailman/listinfo/flexradio_flex-radio.biz Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/flexradio%40flex-radio.biz/ Knowledge Base: http://kb.flex-radio.com/ Homepage: http://www.flex-radio.com/
