[TenTec] Pegasus revisited
Edmonds, J.B.
jedmonds.dit@state.va.us
Tue, 8 Jun 1999 08:32:25 -0400
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>
> 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