[aprssig] Packet Node on 144.390 ?
shortsheep at worldnet.att.net
Wed Sep 13 02:09:05 CDT 2006
Bill, please explain your last comment.
With a Pactor-II or III modem, capable of up to something like 33kbaud
throughput (due to sophisticated compression and transport protocols)
how is WinLink less efficient than 1200 baud connected mode packet
ack'ing individual packets and waiting for ack's etc through several layers
of nodes and BBS's? Not to mention Pactor's ability to pass data
effectively up to -18db BELOW the noise floor. Most packet modems
require tons of clean strong audio or else they go stupid and can't decode.
But let's not open that whole decade+ long debate over pre-emphasis,
proper tone levels, etc ad nauseum. WinLink *is* far superior simply
because it generally relies on Pactor which is several magnitudes more
efficient than packet. For the poor bloke who can't enter via HF and
accesses WinLink from a packet front end, well maybe there's an arguement
there. I never think in terms of VHF/Packet and WinLink in the same
sentance, because I will always choose the HF route because it is far
and just plain more fun. VHF WinLink for me is merely a backup method
in case there's nothing else available. But now we're getting a bit off
----- Original Message -----
From: <wa7nwp at jnos.org>
> You got that backwards Bob. Winlink Email is just a part of what we can
> do with Packet and other Amateur Data modes...
> And no - it doesn't offer far superior performance either. So many urban
> legends about Winlink.
> Bill - WA7NWP
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
More information about the aprssig