The fact that it is VB says some thing.
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmonds, J.B. <jedmonds.dit@state.va.us>
To: 'tentec@contesting.com' <tentec@contesting.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 1:33 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Pegasus revisited
>
>Sorry about the previous with no subject...
>
>J.B.
>N4NQY
>The software (according to TT) is written in Visual Basic (Source code will
>not be available). A port to other than Windows will be difficult. My
>understanding is that the command structure will be published and anyone is
>free to develop their own. my guess is that their will be a "good ole DOS
>version" from some ham although I am comfortable with VB and the Beta
>software wasn't all that bad. Neither were the specs actually. The spec
>sheet, when compared to the competion, was pretty good. Who wants to
>compare it to a 706 anyway? It isn't an Omni IV Plus but then its
one-third
>the price and quite honestly the RIGHT price as far as I'm concerned. I'm
>ready to buy as soon as one question is answered. "HOW EASY WILL IT
>INTERFACE WITH CONTESTING SOFTWARE???" and what will the interface be?
Will
>it be software only or will it need as second serial port for control from
>other software? The picture is very muddy right now. Be the first on
your
>block and tel me how to get it working with TR or CT.
>
>J.B.
>N4NQY
>
>
>
>I'm not so certain Ten Tec won't release the programming interface, given
>the
>success they've had with the RX-320, and the available 3rd party software
>for
>that. Was there a draft Pegasus manual at Dayton? I'd think that the
>programming
>interface spec would be in there. One doesn't need application source code
>to
>write to a programming API. Or did Ten Tec say that they were keeping the
>interface proprietary? That would be disappointing. Even my old Paragon has
>a
>command set in the manual for the serial interface.
>
>I'd hazard a WAG (wild *ss guess) that the Pegasus command set might be a
>superset of the 320's. I do know it would be very cool to run a rig like
>this
>under FreeBSD or Linux (trivial HF remote operation then).
>
>I understand the Pegasus shown at Dayton was prerelease (is it even type
>approved yet?), so I'd fairly expect to compare a production Pegasus to a
>production 706 at some point as far as receiver performance. I'd also
expect
>Ten
>Tec to do some work on the front end, mixer, and PA to get the specs up to
>those
>of other rigs in the price range they're aiming for. Gary takes valid issue
>with
>all of these.
>
>I also agree with Gary (said elsewhere) that this rig is interesting as a
>test
>bed for RF design.
>
>This thread got going when someone was comparing a 706 Mk !V to the 6N2.
>Funny
>how these things take on a life of their own.
>
>Steve Baron wrote:
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I am always amused by the 'make it open so it will run on anything' anfd
>> then GNU, Linux, etc.
>>
>> If these clowns only knew.....
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Steve Ellington N4LQ <n4lq@iglou.com>
>> To: tentec@contesting.com <tentec@contesting.com>
To: <tentec@contesting.com>
>> Date: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 2:22 AM
>> Subject: [TenTec] Fw: New Ten Tec - Pegasus LOW BAND!
>>
>> >
>> >I don't make a habbit of posting threads from news groups but figured
>this
>> >may help some folks who missed it.
>> >
>> >Steve N4LQ
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: Gary Coffman <ke4zv@bellsouth.net>
>> >Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.equipment
>> >Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 1999 1:30 PM
>> >Subject: Re: New Ten Tec - Pegasus LOW BAND!
>> >
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 20 May 1999 12:28:03 -0400, Chuck Murcko
>> ><chuck.murcko@platinum.com> wrote:
>> >> >The 706 fairly compares to neither new Ten Tec rig. I've read the
>> >> >specs on both these rigs, knowing Ten Tec has a track record of
>actually
>> >> >delivering what they measure, not promise.
>> >>
>> >> True, but have you taken a hard look at the specs for the Pegasus?
>> >> Not so hot are they? I got some hands on time with it at Dayton and
>> >> chatted with the designers. I'd rate its receiver as no better than
the
>> >> IC-706, maybe not quite as good. It definitely doesn't hold a candle
to
>> >> the Kachina (no surprise there, of course, it costs half as much).
>> >>
>> >> Its synthesizer has *way* more phase noise than is acceptable in a
>> >> modern HF rig. The analog front end has much too low a 3rd order
>> >> intercept. And the PA has too much two tone IMD to be a good spectral
>> >> neighbor. The software is pretty uninspired too, and only runs under
>> >> Windoze.
>> >>
>> >> There's a lot of potential there, but they don't have it right yet.
>They
>> >> need to clean up the synthesizer, beef up the first mixer, and clean
>> >> up the PA to make it minimally acceptable. They also need to open
>> >> up their software so third parties can produce a better user interface
>> >> than their uninspired offering.
>> >>
>> >> Being stuck using Windoze and proprietary software is *not* a feature.
>> >> They should go open source, ala GNU, so we can port the user interface
>> >> to a decent OS like Linux, and make it more functional for the
computer
>> >> operator. A software emulation of a traditional hardware front panel
>> >doesn't
>> >> cut it. If may *look* familiar, but it doesn't *work* familar. A
>computer
>> >radio
>> >> has to have a different sort of user interface if it is to be easily
>and
>> >comfortably
>> >> operated with a keyboard and mouse (and perhaps joystick).
>> >>
>> >> Kachina has it almost right. They fully document their API and
>encourage
>> >> third party software, including ports to other operating systems. If
>> >TenTec
>> >> were to take an even bolder step in that direction, they might have a
>> >winner.
>> >> They should realize that they're in the business of selling radios,
not
>> >software.
>> >> If open source software will sell more radios, and it will, then they
>> >should go
>> >> open source and open architecture. They have the oportunity to set an
>> >industry
>> >> standard that could have as big an impact as Linux has had, or as IBM
>had
>> >> when they decided to make the PC open architecture.
>> >>
>> >> Gary
>> >> Gary Coffman KE4ZV | You make it |mail to ke4zv@bellsouth.net
>> >> 534 Shannon Way | We break it |
>> >> Lawrenceville, GA | Guaranteed |
>> >
>> >
>> >--
>> >FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>> >Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>> >Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> >Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>> >Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>> >
>>
>> --
>> FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>> Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>> Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>> Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>> Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>--
>73, KE3KR
>Chuck Murcko
>chuck@topsail.org
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
>
>
>--
>FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
>Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
>Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
>Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
>Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
>
>
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/tentecfaq.htm
Submissions: tentec@contesting.com
Administrative requests: tentec-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-tentec@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search.htm
|