As the processor usage data shows, the computer was not being taxed. I
believe each copy would have been given all the processing time it needed
up to the point where the processor ran out of cycles. IOW, I don't think
there would be any difference in the quality of copy, but didn't test it. I
have a separate HAL ST-6000 set up as a dumb terminal on the P4, and could
have included it easily, but didn't think of it.
When signals were present, the quality of print seemed _totally_ normal to me.
This might be a good time to use ve3nea's formal test method published here
a few weeks ago. Maybe somebody can take time to run through his procedure
and see what they get.
Jerry W4UK
At 15:59 2/22/2005, Bill Turner wrote:
>The next question is "How well do those copies of MMTTY demodulate?".
>Windows is notorious for timing problems when multitasking. I would
>suggest the multi MMTTY computer be compared side by side with a computer
>running only one instance and fed by the same audio.
>
>--
>Bill, W6WRT
>
>_______________________________________________________________
>
>Original Message:
>
>Jerry Flanders <jeflanders@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>>So, the obvious question: How many instances of MMTTY can a modern
>>computer run?
>
>
>
>--
_______________________________________________
RTTY mailing list
RTTY@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/rtty
|