Related to the earlier question about amateur radio ASCII,
there was also the occasion when the 60wpm limit was lifted
and 100 wpm Baudot was allowed. This too never became popular
because only the guys who had Model 28 machines could use it,
and because the shorter bit length (13 ms. versus 22 ms
s wrote:
> The CEO of GM once said that “What is good for GM is good for the country.”
>
>
>
> *From:* digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of *jhaynesatalumni
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:47 AM
> *To:* digitalradio@yahoogr
The CEO of GM once said that "What is good for GM is good for the country."
From: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of jhaynesatalumni
Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2008 8:47 AM
To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ASCII ?
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, "Jose A. Amador" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but there was a GM - Microsoft
> controversy that ended with a caustic reply from the GM's President
> that explained it too well.
That's interesting, because I think it was GM that is generally
credited with inve
jhaynesatalumni wrote:
> I guess some people thought it was a Big Deal, but there were lots
> of reasons why it didn't go anywhere.
>
> I'd say the overriding one is that with 60 wpm Baudot RTTY the bit
> length is 22 milliseconds. With 100 wpm ASCII 110 baud the bit
> length is 9 milliseconds.
I guess some people thought it was a Big Deal, but there were lots
of reasons why it didn't go anywhere.
I'd say the overriding one is that with 60 wpm Baudot RTTY the bit
length is 22 milliseconds. With 100 wpm ASCII 110 baud the bit
length is 9 milliseconds. That means 2.4 times the bandwidth,
--- On Wed, 10/1/08, hankvond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: hankvond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [digitalradio] Re: ASCII ?
> To: digitalradio@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, October 1, 2008, 8:30 PM
> --- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker
--- In digitalradio@yahoogroups.com, John Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Why did ASCII fail to catch on? Just curious!
>
> 73,
>
> John, K9MM
>
Hi John,
Probably because ASCII requires separate equipment. The standard TTY
would not do ASCII and the home computers of 1980 would were a lit
