Lee Jenkins wrote:
Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well.
I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months, and I let it run 24/7, with a
bunch of apps open at all times. And
Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well.
I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months, and I let it run 24/7, with a
bunch of apps open at all times. And this is a 300E no-name box.
If
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 14:27:10 +1300, Matt Riddell
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems strange to make this comment (i.e. higher uptime) in a
conversation about porting zaptel to windows.
I don't think it is. I wouldn't use Windows for big iron, but provided
the hardware + drivers are reliable, and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:47:38 +1100, Paul Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm - you could just buy a SPA-3000/3102/3666/etc.
Thanks but I prefer PCI cards. Less cables, less power units that can
burn, less mess :-)
It seems
On Dec 15, 2007 6:06 PM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When an Asterisk appliance and associated phones can compete with a
Panasonic KXTG-4000 (or similar) on terms including price, ease of use
reliabilitythat's when Asterisk for every grandma, aunt, uncle
counsins (who never
On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 11:18:08 +0100, randulo wrote:
On Dec 15, 2007 6:06 PM, Michael Graves [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other aspect of this question is that more and more, like
computing in the cloud and storage in the cloud, VOIP in the cloud is
taking over. How many people now have unlimited
You nailed it Randy!
When an Asterisk appliance and associated phones can compete with a
Panasonic KXTG-4000 (or similar) on terms including price, ease of use
reliabilitythat's when Asterisk for every grandma, aunt, uncle
counsins (who never finished high school) will be viable for
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 11:33 +0100, Gergo Csibra wrote:
Friday, December 14, 2007, 5:47:38 AM, Paul wrote:
Umm - you could just buy a SPA-3000/3102/3666/etc.
What is SPA-3666?
The special red model.
PaulH
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS that in essence is
a 32 bit extension and graphical shell, for a 16 bit
patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally coded
for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit
company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Line of the year
Dovid B wrote:
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS that in essence is
a 32 bit extension and graphical shell, for a 16 bit
patch to an 8 bit operating system, originally coded
for a 4 bit microprocessor, written by a 2 bit
company, that can't stand 1 bit of competition.
Line of the year
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:30:09 +0100, randulo wrote:
It's funny, but though I think nothing of having a linux box as a pbx,
on 24/7 for years, I can't imagine using windows this way. I think
there's little or no market for this whereas if there were a fanless,
diskless embedded solution for just
For this market,
people don't want anything complicated. I would imagine the software
equivalent of a run-of-the-mill answering machine.
Which has existed, in one form or another, for years. I was using a
voice enabled faxmodem a decade ago to answer my phone. The software
that came with it
Which has existed, in one form or another, for years. I was using a
voice enabled faxmodem a decade ago to answer my phone. The software
that came with it (don't remember the name, but WinFax also does/did
this) even allowed for a simple IVR, for mailbox selection and whatnot.
The only things
Friday, December 14, 2007, 5:47:38 AM, Paul wrote:
Umm - you could just buy a SPA-3000/3102/3666/etc.
What is SPA-3666?
--
Best regards,
Gergomailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 02:55:39AM +0100, Vincent wrote:
Hello
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Is the Zaptel/Zapata combo too *nix-centric?
No. The current zaptel is Linux-centric.
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 06:01:49 +0100, Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:28 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, there just might be, take a look at this...:
Ah yeah, forgot about $angoma ;-) I'll restate this as: No card for
home/SOHO use, ie. in the $50-100 range for the single FXO port
Doug wrote:
At 19:55 12/13/2007, Vincent wrote:
Hello
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Is the Zaptel/Zapata combo too *nix-centric?
Thanks.
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS
or
Sangoma hardware is not a problem. And, after all, you get what you pay
for in most cases.
Michael Graves
mgraves at mstvp.com
o(713) 861-4005
c(713) 201-1262
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype mjgraves
FWD 54245
Original Message
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] [Zaptel] Why no port to Windos
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 15:47:38 +1100, Paul Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Umm - you could just buy a SPA-3000/3102/3666/etc.
Thanks but I prefer PCI cards. Less cables, less power units that can
burn, less mess :-)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well.
I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months, and I let it run 24/7, with a
bunch of apps open at all times. And this is a 300E no-name box.
If your PC is so unstable,
Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well.
I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months, and I let it run 24/7, with a
bunch of apps open at all times. And this is a 300E no-name box.
If
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:30:46 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, consider the potential market size for people, the DIY sorts,
who would have Asterisk in their homes.
Precisely: The home/SOHO market is huge, and providing an IVR + PCI
card combo for Windows for, say, $200, would probably
On Friday 14 December 2007 14:43, Vincent wrote:
OTOH, having to run a separate PC just to handle calls from a single
POST line AND having to install Linux + Asterisk on this thing... It'd
have to be an appliance (which I haven't seen avaiable in this price
range).
Didn't you just define an
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 20:38 +0100, Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:51:10 -0500, Lee Jenkins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I have to reboot my desktop xp box daily for it to run well.
I haven't rebooted my XPSP2 in months,
I also have no problem with the stability of Windows XP
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 22:21 -0600, Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:55:39 Vincent wrote:
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Because nobody has done it yet. The real
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:43:05 +0100, Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 10:30:46 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That said, consider the potential market size for people, the DIY sorts,
who would have Asterisk in their homes.
Precisely: The home/SOHO market is huge, and providing an IVR + PCI
On Fri, Dec 14, 2007 at 06:01:49AM +0100, Vincent wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:28 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, there just might be, take a look at this...:
Ah yeah, forgot about $angoma ;-) I'll restate this as: No card for
home/SOHO use, ie. in the $50-100 range for the single
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:34:04 -0600, Michael Graves
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the market is potentially huge...for a packaged solution.
If all it takes in plugging the PCi card in their PC, and running
setup.exe, it's no worse than installing a printer. I would imagine
that the standard
It's funny, but though I think nothing of having a linux box as a pbx,
on 24/7 for years, I can't imagine using windows this way. I think
there's little or no market for this whereas if there were a fanless,
diskless embedded solution for just under $200 that came configured
with the account (IAX
At 19:55 12/13/2007, Vincent wrote:
Hello
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Is the Zaptel/Zapata combo too *nix-centric?
Thanks.
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS that in essence is
a
Doug wrote:
At 19:55 12/13/2007, Vincent wrote:
Hello
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Is the Zaptel/Zapata combo too *nix-centric?
Thanks.
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS
Doug wrote:
At 19:55 12/13/2007, Vincent wrote:
Hello
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Is the Zaptel/Zapata combo too *nix-centric?
Thanks.
Windows is a half-baked, dying OS
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:55:39 Vincent wrote:
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Because nobody has done it yet. The real answer is probably more along the
lines of that there's no
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:21:50 -0600, Tilghman Lesher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is likely to be a very strenuous job to port the framework and all of the
drivers.
Too bad, because there doesn't seem to be any PCI card for FXO/FXS
available for Windows.
Vincent wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:21:50 -0600, Tilghman Lesher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is likely to be a very strenuous job to port the framework and all of the
drivers.
Too bad, because there doesn't seem to be any PCI card for FXO/FXS
available for Windows.
Erm,
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 14:50:28 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erm, there just might be, take a look at this...:
Ah yeah, forgot about $angoma ;-) I'll restate this as: No card for
home/SOHO use, ie. in the $50-100 range for the single FXO port model.
Tilghman Lesher wrote:
On Thursday 13 December 2007 19:55:39 Vincent wrote:
I was wondering why there doesn't seem to a Windows version of Zaptel,
making the Digium and its clones unavailable for a Windows PBX.
Because nobody has done it yet. The real answer is probably more along
Umm - you could just buy a SPA-3000/3102/3666/etc.
PaulH
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 05:36 +0100, Vincent wrote:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:21:50 -0600, Tilghman Lesher
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It is likely to be a very strenuous job to port the framework and all of the
drivers.
Too bad, because
38 matches
Mail list logo
