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
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.
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, an
-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 seem
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 unlimi
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
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 Colocat
> 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 viabl
> 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 th
> 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 i
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
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
>> 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
_
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
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 in
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 sin
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 + P
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 r
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 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 a
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
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.
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 Provi
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,
f the Digium or
Sangoma hardware is not a problem. And, after all, you get what you pay
for in most cases.
Michael Graves
mgraves mstvp.com
o(713) 861-4005
c(713) 201-1262
sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
skype mjgraves
FWD 54245
> Original Message ----
> Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] [Zaptel]
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 ha
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 po
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 http://
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 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.
_
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,
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.
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 mo
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.
___
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 compe
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 hal
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 hal
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
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.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.ap
39 matches
Mail list logo
