[TenTec] Updating Radios...
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 19:06:11 -0500
I agree with your point about TenTec charging a yearly fee for the updates.
As much as they think they are doing the ham community a favor by offering
it for free, I for one would rather the funds go back into developement on
bettering what I already own.
What is possible with the software is amazing. I am currently running a
"pre" Beta of Mike (WA1EYP) Pegasus Plus and you would think that I have a
new radio. His 32 bit approach with digital filtered scope is head and
shoulders above anything else I have played with.
Also, in response to your comment about the tuner... I have heard that LDG
is possibly coming out with a tuner for the Pegasus that has more
intelligance and will retain memory.. If not, WA1EYP has figured out how to
make the current internal Pegasus tuner act like it has memory using his
software... Not sure if he will end up adding it as an option on the Pegasus
Plus or not.
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Clifford" <email@example.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 3:12 PM
Subject: [TenTec] Updating Radios...
> I for one would like to see Ten-Tec go to a subscription base for their
> software upgrades. Purchasers would get one year of free upgrades, after
> which they could pay a nominal annual fee ($25 or thereabouts) to get the
> privilege of updates. Of course, bug fix updates would always be free.
> sure that every radio does/could have a hard-coded serial number, so
> could easily prevent unauthorized updating (pirating).
> A fee of $25 isn't very much (less than annual ARRL dues), and yet a
> thousand radios sold will pay the wages of a GOOD software developer and
> motivate him. Of course, tie in his salary/bonuses to the quality of his
> work! (Don't forget that this guy will get paid from
> upgrades too!) If we really want Ten-Tec to be successful, then they have
> to make money... from us. After all, the Option 1-to-3 upgrades for the
> Omni VI weren't free (and shouldn't have been). I'm thankful that Ten-Tec
> offered the upgrade AT ALL... when was the last time YaeComWood offered
> upgrades to recently obsoleted products (besides the upgrade of "buy a new
> I would also like to see Ten-Tec separate the radio's user interface
> display) from the rest of the firmware, and allow users the ability to
> rewrite this. I wonder why the RX-350's display looks better (more
> aesthetically pleasing) than that of the Jupiter, when the same hardware
> behind both. I see this as being a great market for freeware (like visual
> front panels for the various web-based multimedia players)... set up a
> website that allows users to swap display layouts so they can pick the one
> they like best.
> As an aside, one difference I see between Ten-Tec and my other favorite
> radio company (Elecraft) is that the latter really tries to put an extra
> touch on a product before it is released (integration-wise). Case in
> the KAT2 tuner versus the Jupiter/Pegasus internal tuner. Now... these
> tuners work very similarly, with one exception: the KAT2 is much more
> tightly integrated into the radio. You can get a very good idea of SWR
> actual power out fom the KAT2 thru the K2's front panel... not so with the
> Ten-Tec. Why didn't/doesn't Ten-Tec take a little more time and update
> by allowing the tuner and rig to communicate? Sometimes better ISN'T the
> enemy of "good enough."
> Re totally SDR's... why not let hardware do what it does best, and
> do what it does best? I'm not convinced that an advanced DSP chip hooked
> to the SO-239 jack would give me better performance (that I could use,
> versus measure in the lab) than some solid-state analog circuitry that
> brought the basic signal into the DSP, and it would be a lot more
> susceptable to failure from static/HV/lightning/etc.
> - jgc
> John Clifford KD7KGX
> Heathkit HW-9 WARC/HFT-9/HM-9
> Elecraft K2 #1678 /KSB2/KIO2/KBT2/KAT2/KNB2/KAF2/KPA100
> Ten-Tec Omni VI/Opt1
> email: firstname.lastname@example.org
> TenTec mailing list