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
I have often made the distinction between Pactor III and Winlink, Demetre.
For example, see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digitalradio/message/25201
73,
Dave, AA6YQ
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Demetre SV1UY
Sent: Satur
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
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.
RX only wouldn't need to worry about turnaround times.. Hmmm
Leigh/WA5ZNU
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 5:23 pm, Dave AA6YQ wrote:
> Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two
> challenges:
>
> 1. The documentation provided is insufficient
>
> 2. The turnaround time requirements
Those who have considered implementing Pactor 2 and/or 3 report two
challenges:
1. The documentation provided is insufficient
2. The turnaround time requirements demand an operating system with
real-time scheduling capabilities that Windows does not provide
#1 might be overc
The biggest problem with Pactor-3 in the U.S. is that it periodicly fuels a
desire to elimnate all digital modes with a similar bandwidth as the FCC would
never ban a specific product.
73,
John
KD6OZH
- Original Message -
From: Demetre SV1UY
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
]>
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
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
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
-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.
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
