[FADCA] USB to Com Port

[Keating Floyd]

Any thoughts on begging the whole question?

See what they're up to here:
    http://www.baycom.org/~tom/ham/soundmodem/

You guys have been doing this a lot longer than I, so if you've seen 
this and discarded it already, please forgive.

'73,

Keating

bud Thompson wrote:

> See my bottom posting . . .
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: <wd4sen at bellsouth.net>
> To: "Florida Amateur Digital Communication Association" 
> <fadca at mailman.qth.net>
> Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 10:39
> Subject: Re: Re: [FADCA] USB to Com Port
>
>
>> Bud, some good thoughts.....and I agree a standard would be the most 
>> reliable route to go....
>>
>
> * * *
>
> The problem is this - we don't have very many (OLD!) experienced 
> packetteers from the late 80's /early 90's coming back into packet now 
> that packet is back . . . As users, the (OLD) guys are no longer 
> interested.
>
> We also have absolutely zero US-based TNC suppliers offering anything 
> NEW in the way of firmware-based TNC-2 clone/compliant TNCs.  (The 
> standard is from the early 80's!)  Kantronics, PacComm, TimeWaver, MFJ 
> - NADA new stuff.
>
> In some cases the latest update in firmware is earlier than 1999!  
> Some Kantronics hardware is no longer supported at all with upgraded 
> firmware, and DRSI, a  leader in the late 80's,  has absolutely 
> disappeared! MFJ no longer offers technical support/hardware repair - 
> having delegated that to PacComm! AES has turned into Timewave -
>
> So, what we have are newbees to packet (most of who are accustomed to 
> and expect  Plug-'n-Play - who innocently pick up a 10-15 year old TNC 
> at a swap fest for $25-$100 and go home expecting it to work.
>
> Those legacy TNCs were designed for the RS-232 standards of the early 
> 80s - and who knows what abuse they've been put through since! ( A TNC 
> now 15 years old with an original battery is a problem ready to 
> happen! Remove the batter!)
>
> I hate TNCs - mostly because from 1985-1995 there were 15 bizzillion 
> hardware methods for implementing "RS-232!"
>
> Unless these Old Timer TNCs can be proven to work 'as advertised' with 
> a 'standard RS-232' link to a commuter - there is no guarantee they 
> will work with a firmware-based ROSE, or LINUX- or DOS-based 
> controlling program as we are presently using on the Florida Layered 
> Packet Network.
>
> My recommendation: When you pick up a brand new or a used 
> firmware-based TNC - be certain it works as advertised using a DOS- or 
> Windows-based terminal program and a "standard" comport.  If so, it is 
> almost assuredly capably of working with a firmware-based ROSE, or 
> LINUX-based FPAC system and likely with a USB/Serial adaptor.
>
> Then purchase the USB/Serial adaptor of your choice!
>
> bud N0IA
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> FADCA mailing list
> FADCA at mailman.qth.net
> http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/fadca
>
>