Well, I don't respond well to personal attacks, character assassinations,
juvenile exchanges--I really just don't have time--nothing to be gained
really--but, if you must, proceed at your desire...

rec.radio.cb has made me aware of such exchanges on newsgroups--and
thickened my skin... grin

John
--
Sit down the six-pack!!! STEP AWAY!!! ...and go do something...

wrote in message
oups.com...
| From: "Michael A. Terrell" on Wed,May 11 2005 9:50 am
|
| John Smith wrote:
|
| So, although your original argument was how difficult a bus and
| keeping
| analog seperate from digital which would share various
| signals--would be,
| then, when the argument was made that someone just picked up a bunch
| of
| on-the-shelf items and went ahead and done it... you flip-flop--to
| where now
| it was so obivious someone should have done such a simple thing LONG
| before
| them...
|
| I didn't "Flip-Flop" I know what's involved, including the million
| dollar plus expense involved in designing one configuration of a
| modular
| radio.
|
| Michael, don't let this POSEUR bother you. That
| anony-mouse "John Smith" hasn't been there, hasn't
| done it. He wants to be "Instant Guru" and wants
| a "rep" without doing any work for it. From what
| he states - all in generalities, no specifics -
| he can't think things out close to necessary detail.
|
| You were right to "plonk" him.
|
|
| You have your head up your sorry ass, and I'm through wasting time
| with your nonsense. Its obvious that you don't know a dam thing about
| design when you compare the Apple II to a real design project. You
| need
| to get an education in design and stop trying to blow smoke up
| everyone's ass.
|
| Way to go! :-)
|
| At some other time I wouldn't mind having a friendly
| argument with you on the Apple ][...but not with this
| anony-mouse hanging around trying to intrude and
| smoke up the place. I still have my 1980-purchase
| Apple ][+ and had a lot of fun with it...including
| lots of calculations (Applesoft had 10-digit
| accuracy with 5-byte FP variables, muy better than
| 4-byte single precision). I've gone into the hard-
| ware and analyzed it thoroughly, scoped it, written
| it up...submitted it as a manuscript only to find out
| Howard W. Sams was already in production on a similar
| book! :-)
|
| In many ways, the PRODUCTION version of the Apple ][
| was the forerunner of the IBM PC out of Boca Raton.
| But designed (or rather re-designed) about two years
| prior to the IBM PC. Uncanny similarity between the
| two in basic structure, expansion slots, and - yes -
| "open architecture." PRODUCTION planning went into
| the ][ and it wasn't much like the original board-
| only Apple.
|
| But, the ][ on up to the Apple //gs were terrific RF
| generators! :-) By contrast, a similar structure
| using only three main chips (CPU from Western Design,
| 64K EPROM, 64K/128K Static RAM) can be very nice and
| quiet RF wise because of the internal transistor
| structures in those chips. [I've already done a
| preliminary breadboard setup to verify that] Such a
| controller system can adapt itself to many kinds of
| "radio controller" applications without any of the
| RF coupling problems. It's been done before by the
| big three in Japan using older microcontrollers in
| many different transceivers, all without disturbing
| the receiver or the transmitter specifications.
|
| Too many of the older hams are oriented towards a
| "legacy radio" structure...mostly analog. That
| just doesn't adapt to "plug-and-play" ease of adding
| or modifying an SDR. Trying to use a common PC as
| a "model" for an SDR is a bunch of nonsense. The
| "bus" and "interface structure" is an analogue only
| the broadest sense of the term. Doesn't apply,
| either technically or organizationally.
|
|
|