Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> Happy New Year to you and your family.
Happy New Year to you and yours, too (also, to the readers of this list).
> As for the early KAMs you are right, but after a while they brought
> out new firmware and they fixed the problem. I have an early KAM with
> a
: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:28 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would argue t
radio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Simon Brown
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2008 4:18 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
Dave,
I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use o
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Dave AA6YQ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would argue that the fuel for this is the irresponsible use of
Pactor III
> by Winlink in unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect whether
or not
> the frequency is locally clear - not some inherent flaw or sub
Dave,
I don't agree about Windows real-time scheduling problems - correct use of
priority (SetThreadPriority) and CPU cycle counting (QueryPerformanceCounter)
results in a level of accuracy more than adequate for our needs.
Do you know about the Pactor 3 copyright issue? I believe that it is pr
At 11:35 AM 1/5/2008, Dave wrote:
>I would argue that the fuel for this is the
>irresponsible use of Pactor III by Winlink in
>unattended PMBOs without the ability to detect
>whether or not the frequency is locally clear
>not some inherent flaw or suboptimal
>characterics. In attended opera
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of John B. Stephensen
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.
not
> be motivated by a dare alone.
>
> 73,
>
> Dave, AA6YQ
>
> From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
>
> Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Li
, January 04, 2008 4:49 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com <mailto:digitalradio%40yahoogroups.com>
, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> I have attempted to ignore w
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 21:48 UTC
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> I have attempted to ignore what matters only to those under the FCC
> j
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 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
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> 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
]>
To:
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 8:20 AM
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
>
> 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.
>
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. :(
LA5V
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
Hello Simon,
> There is so much work involved in writing a fool-proof program with
>a good user interface that having to also write the encoding /
>decoding interface
RR for all. Yes I understand and it's true that detailed
specifications + source code as Peter have done with PSK31 was the
b
Charles Brabham wrote:
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Roger J. Buffington"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:barrister54%40socal.rr.com>>
> Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
>
> > snip< Actually, the only outfit the
- Original Message -
From: "Roger J. Buffington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
> snip<
> Actually, the only outfit they licensed it to was one American company
> the name of which escapes me.
It was Pac-Com
Demetre,
You really need to end this conjecture about Pactor unless you have some
new information that Pactor is proprietary like Pactor 2 and Pactor 3.
If you check on the internet, you will find that Pactor is an open
protocol, while P2 and P3 "use proprietary technology controlled by one
Ge
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know of any PSKmail use in the U.S. There have been no comments
> on this group of success with this mode here although I think there may
> be at least one server? In order for it to gain any traction it would
> ha
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > 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 w
Demetre,
It is possible that SCS did license Pactor at a later time. It seems to
me that other companies tried to implement the memory ARQ function with
limited success. This feature is not necessary for Pactor to operate,
but it does help greatly with weak signals. However, if a company
lice
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
>
> 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.
No worry, Demetre. You did not u
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.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 at
-Original Message-
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Roger J. Buffington
Sent: Saturday, December 29, 2007 12:08 PM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [digitalradio] Re: Licensing of Pactor modes
AEA, Kantronics, and HAL all reverse
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.
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Roger J. Buffington"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Demetre SV1UY wrote:
>
> > Hi Rick,
> >
> > Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
> > 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
> > protocol. There is no
Demetre SV1UY wrote:
> Hi Rick,
>
> Well my old KAM Controller with it's addon PCB for supporting PACTOR
> 1 definatelly has Memory ARQ. Memory ARQ is a must for PACTOR
> protocol. There is no PACTOR without memory ARQ.
Actually, this is untrue. The PK232 did not have memory arq, and unless
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Do you really know if Pactor was licensed to others? If SCS actually
> fully licensed the mode, it would seem to me that they would insure
that
> the memory ARQ would have been included. Only the SCS modems seemed to
> have
29 matches
Mail list logo