[TenTec] Fw: New Ten Tec - Pegasus LOW BAND!

[Steve Baron]

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>
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