--- AC5E@aol.com wrote:
>
> Sooner rather than later someone is going to cut
> costs and put a <$5.00 USB
> interface in place of the RS232 port on rotor
> controllers.
That same $5 will put the Ethernet parts in those
devices as well. Why choose a technology that costs
the same but is more constricting?
> Because the USB port
> is cheaper to build in than the
> legacy serial port; because it will take less effort
> to convert programs to
> use USB or Firewire than Ethernet; and because
> nearly every computer built in
> the last three years has either or both USB and
> Firewire.
In the end I don't see a lot of value of trying to
convert legacy apps to begin with. There are much
better software programming tools to work with that
have a high degree of support for Ethernet already
built into them. Just look at how the majority of
PSK31 apps were already written in Win32 vs. the older
DOS RTTY/CW programs which were originally written in
16bit compilers, however a good many of those RTTY
apps are already being replaced by Win32 versions. So
I have no doubt that if the Ethernet hardware is put
into our gear that the software writers will quickly
adopt it.
> Since USB/RS232 adapters are still fairly common and
> fairly cheap the
> transition to the newer mode would be much easier,
> allowing a mix of USB, or
> Firewire, and "Legacy" RS232 equipment. Without
> obsoleting the equipment we already
> have, or requiring a major upgrade of most late
> model computers.
Ethernet is not a major upgrade to a computer by any
stretch of the imagination, a large percentage of new
ones already have it, a $10-25 card will add it to any
of the others. Its probably less expensive than adding
a USB card.
> On the rig side - RS232 seems to do an adequate job
> of doing what needs to be
> done. The alternatives might do it faster - but how
> much faster do you need
> to update the frequency on your rig? Or change
> bands remotely?
Taking this view is to completely miss the point of
using Ethernet. Many of us don't want to keep doing
the same rudimentary things like changing frequency
and getting some band data from the radio. Technology
like Ethernet with its bandwidth capability opens the
possibilities for doing a whole range of things that
RS232 can never do. First and foremost is data
streaming, once we can do that we can eliminate the
need for sound card interfaces altogether. Or external
mic equalizers, for example you could use a single
microphone fed through the PC for all of your radios
in your shack that are on the radio network. How about
diversity reception with 3, 4, 5 or more receivers,
without a rats nest of analog audio leads running all
over the place? All of those receivers could feed
their DSP filtered and demodulated signal data streams
to a computer that digitally mixes the signals in such
away that they have spatial presence distributed
across you 4-speaker computer sound system. This can
be done once the radio itself can stream digital data,
either before DSP processing or after, you choose.
> I did some looking and I don't find RS232 to
> Ethernet adapters.
I'm not surprised that this is true, they are
fundamentally different entities. What you can find
are RS232 extenders, they often use Ethernet signaling
to do their job, they aren't however Ethernet device
per se because they are generally peer to peer
devices.
One fellow that I frequently correspond with privately
had gone on a mission to find USB to RS2342 converters
at Dayton, he searched high and low and found none. So
I wouldn't put that much faith in the long term
viability of USB to RS232 conversions.
> That means converting the shack from what I have to
> Ethernet would be an
> expensive proposition. I would have to consider the
> situation very carefully
> before I placed an order for an Ethernet enabled rig
> - and not much thought at all
> to placing an order for a Firewire or USB ported
> rig.
I don't think this is true, I'll be willing to bet you
could assemble a small 100Mb switched network for less
than a USB hub and an assortment of USB to whatever
converters would cost.
> Of course, it appears the ideal solution would be to
> do both. Spend the extra
> three bucks or whatever and add both USB and
> Ethernet to the next generation
> high end rigs. You can have your cake and eat it
> too.
There may be some merit to this but if I were a radio
manufacturer I would put all of my emphasis into
Ethernet for the various reasons that I and some
others have already posted here on this reflector. If
there is an existing ham radio gear company who may
have the necessary vision to pursue this it would be
Ten Tec. All they need to do is make the proper
hardware, some key pieces of low level software
(mostly in the form of firmware) and the rest of the
end user application software writers will come to
support it.
Duane
N9DG
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
|