[pskmail] Re: Fldigi

  • From: Jack Chomley <radio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <pskmail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 7 Apr 2012 15:04:46 +1000

On 07/04/2012, at 1:41 AM, Eric Davenport <kz5ed@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think these other hardware sources might have some value in the future
> http://beagleboard.org/
> http://trimslice.com/web/
> Looks like the day of the throwaway computer literally is here.
> Just some thoughts for what they are worth.
> 73
> Eric
> -- 
> Eric
> ewdavenport@xxxxxxxxxx

I still believe that ultimately, there will be no choice but to have some kind 
of external processing power, to do the job. The feasibility of a hardware 
concept solution, simply comes back to cost.
Just how much would people pay?
The further growth of PSKmail to add modes and extra features is being hampered 
by PC processing power, in trying to handle ARQ requirements.
Just look at what the original intent of Winmor performance was envisaged and 
then look what it took to make it happen and that the end result was not the 
speed performance they had hoped to get.
Now, look at Pactor......forget the mode, just look at the external processing 
power it needed, to achieve its speed performance and robustness. It could 
never have happened using software on a PC alone, it had to use an external 
processing solution.
Since PSKmail relies on PC software at this time.........future changes to PC 
hardware, operating systems all will affect PSKmail, whereas IF it was in a 
hardware box, there would not be future compatibility problems. 
The architecture of the hardware box, would allow more flexible development, 
along the lines of the LL Grace DSP-12 of 20 years ago.
It could end up a digital modes developers paradise :-)


Jack. VK4JRC

Other related posts: