[aprssig] APRS DOS a time for change?
Wes Johnston, AI4PX
wes at ai4px.com
Fri Jan 11 13:44:18 CST 2008
I think APRS SCS was supposed to be an identically functioning version of
aprs dos... in windows.
Personally, I prefer xastir over ui-view.... xastir is actually not too
painfull to install (it is NOT your average armchair point and click "next"
4 times and then click "finished"), but it handles objects much better than
On 1/11/08, Brian Webster <bwebster at wirelessmapping.com> wrote:
> I've been active in APRS for years and have watched posts about the
> different clients and their non-implementation of certain features. I
> with most of your discussions on the features and their intended purposes.
> The question in my mind now is, why after all these years of pointing this
> out, has APRS DOS not been ported over so that it could be run properly
> within a windows environment? While I understand the original purpose of
> staying with DOS to use older computers that were more cost effective, I
> question the need for that any more. Those machines are mostly gone and
> windows in one form or another is our reality on "old" computers. Even the
> throw away computers hams can pick up for free or next to nothing have
> windows or Linux, not DOS. The idea of hanging on to DOS as the operation
> system is even harder for some of us who used to know the commands we
> needed, but over the years have forgotten what we used to know.
> I like all of the features and the implementations you keep mentioning
> APRSDOS has, I just don't like the idea of having to dedicate a computer
> with an OS that I can barely remember how to run, and that I also lose the
> multi tasking capability on the same machine. As much work as it would be
> code APRSDOS to Windows, I think the time has come. Maybe the idea of
> it open source to allow for others to do the work could be an idea?
> With Ui-View code being locked up now, and as you have mentioned
> plug-ins to change the functionality, this push would be a good idea at
> point. I personally always thought features such as the decaying packet
> rates for objects and positions that didn't change was a great idea. Many
> your original features obviously didn't get implemented properly. I think
> one of the main reasons your program features did not get implemented in
> prevalent clients, was the software author's understanding of all the
> features. Even so, because the "user interface" was what the end user
> preferred and expected, these client programs took hold. Your program got
> left behind and with it many of the features APRS was intended for. I'm
> trying to start a flame war here, just pondering a point that seems to be
> hitting me right in the face. I guess what I am trying to say is that if
> APRSDOS was a windows program you might get more people to use it and thus
> the features. Rather than just point out all of the problems with the
> clients APRS operators are using, let's give them a reason to do it right.
> Roger is gone, you are not. We CAN fix this situation, IF we rethink the
> problem and the approach to a corrective action. Just my thoughts......
> Thank You,
> Brian Webster N2KGC
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
Some people's minds are so open, their brains fall out.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the aprssig