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.