Gotta jump in here. I talked to ICOM about why the 756 PRO was not software
upgradeable and my conclusion from the conversation is that it is a
marketing decision to not upgrade so they can sell more hardware. The
software to implement the features and functions in the Orion is more
complex than the PRO!
What size and type ROM is the question. What type of compression is used? Is
it in machine language or is it compiled in a compressed form and then
implemented by the onboard microprocessor?
I have a PRO and it is nice but NO WHERE as feature or function rich as the
Orion. Much more is being done in the Orion software then in the PRO
software.
73, Tom, W7QF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tentec-admin@contesting.com [mailto:tentec-admin@contesting.com]On
> Behalf Of Duane Grotophorst
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 19:15
> To: George, W5YR; cyr999@extremezone.com
> Cc: tentec
> Subject: Re: [TenTec] KB7OEX: a big plus favoring ORION
>
>
> --- "George, W5YR" <w5yr@att.net> wrote:
> > Well, let's look at the other side of the story:
> >
> > If a system can be updated or re-defined by a single
> > ROM flashing, then
> > this suggests strongly that the system is fairly
> > unsophisticated in that it
> > can function from the contents of a single ROM.
>
> Does it necessarily represent "less" sophistication?
> On the contrary, I think it could be argued it
> actually represents more, at a minimum a higher degree
> of cleverness. As an example the unsophisticated
> single conversion K2 can stand proud amongst the top
> dollar triple and quadruple conversions receivers out
> there. Sophistication alone does not assure good
> performance, in many case it may actually hurt. One of
> my global criticism of the imported radio makers is
> their propensity to keep adding parts until the box
> does what they think it should rather than standing
> back a few steps to rethink about it for a fresh
> restart.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Why isn't the PRO updatable the same way? Mainly
> > because it is a much more
> > complex system containing not only a dedicated DSP
> > processor chipset but
> > also some 5 or 6 other uprocessors in various parts
> > of the radio, and each
> > of them has burned-in ROM instructions. If all of
> > these processors were
> > operated in a distributed network, not only would
> > the system complexity
> > greatly increase - along with the cost - but
> > operating speed could become
> > compromised unless some pretty fast busses and
> > memory devices were used.
>
> Why would you even want to try and network an array a
> disparate microprocessors in a radio? I'm not sure if
> I can fully follow the logic of using 5 or 6
> processors in a ham rig anyhow? What could they all
> possibly be doing that can't be handled by other
> simpler means? One thing to date that the import radio
> makers haven't done is expand their concept of what a
> radio really is, they are still just incrementally
> expanding on the rather narrowly defined classic
> transceiver concept that goes back more than 40 years.
> My fear based on what I've seen so far is that the
> Orion is trying to hard to do the same rather than
> expanding the "outside of the box" thinking
> (literally) - concepts pioneered in the Kachina 505
> and later the Pegasus.
>
> <snip>
>
> > I think that this whole idea of "software-defined"
> > radios has gotten way
> > out of hand and divorced from reality. The fact that
> > a radio may be largely
> > *controlled* by software does not equate to its
> > being a *software-defined*
> > radio.
>
> I think arguably radios like the Pegasus/Jupiter and
> the upcoming Orion are indeed software defined in that
> they are not particularly limited to what they can do
> inside of small ~5KHz slices of RF spectrum. They are
> merely bounded by their roofing filter bandwidths, as
> such they will always be narrow bandwidth mode
> devices. I'm also convinced that the Pegasus/Jupiter
> could be significantly "redefined" from the way they
> behave now by firmware alone. I'm thinking in terms of
> something other than a just CW/SSB box. Granted they
> will always be constrained by their synthesizer
> traits, ADC choice, and DSP horsepower.
>
> <snip>
>
> >In order to remain current and to add many
> > types of new features and
> > capabilities, at least some of the existing hardware
> > must be replaced,
> > either by modification or substitution. This calls
> > for a modular
> > construction which can be much more expensive than
> > more conventional
> > layouts. For an example, compare the extensively
> > shielded modules used with
> > the complex backplane structure of the Kachina 505
> > DSP with the
> > implementation of the Pegasus. Yet, when a fairly
> > minor change was made in
> > the Kachina to upgrade the Speech Monitor among
> > other things, one was
> > required to purchase a new $400 module and firmware
> > and a new software
> > control program to enjoy those advantages.
>
> I suspect part of the costliness of upgrading the 505
> was due in part to being the first into the wilderness
> of DSP ham gear, and the economical, ideal parts
> didn't exist yet. It also may represent some poor
> design choices of the overall architecture that didn't
> allow for more future enhancements by firmware alone.
> The 505's chassis design has always struck me as being
> overly complex. I would also agree though that the
> Pegasus/Jupiter could have used just a bit more
> modularity, but not much. And yes they could stand
> better shielding, especially from outside sources of
> RF.
>
> Duane
> N9DG
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> TenTec mailing list
> TenTec@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/tentec
|