1. Welcome to Verizon Forums - the unofficial Verizon community! Have a question about Verizon? Click HERE to get started.
  2. Expecting Cell Phone Forums? We recently moved Verizon specific content to VerizonForums.com. If you previously had an account on CPF, it has been transferred!

Why Larry gets crap (back)

Discussion in 'alt.cellular.verizon' started by Richard Ness, Nov 11, 2003.

  1. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:53:02 -0600, Steven J Sobol
    <sjsobol@JustThe.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >About Dakota <aboutdakota@removemehotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Yeah, but most people living in Urbia or Sub-Urbia (it sounds like a
    >> disease, doesn't it?) don't understand about how power helps, especially
    >> in rural areas. They think it's *ONLY* because of building obstruction
    >> that phones don't work. They also think smaller is better except when
    >> it comes to food servings, dwellings, and automobiles. Smaller is
    >> better, even if it degrades services.

    >
    >Hm, except if you actually read what I have posted recently, you'll find
    >that that isn't true about me, and I suspect it's not true of many of the
    >other people who post in this group either.


    But would you really want to hold a 3 watt transmitting antenna up to
    your skull? (And are you aware of the temperature the heat sink would
    reach?)



    › See More: Why Larry gets crap (back)
  2. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > >And the technology that is chosen should be an enforced standard.
    >
    > >Just like Mpeg.
    > >Standards work.

    >
    > MPEG isn't enforced. You're free to encode video any way you like.


    I wasn't trying to say that MPEG was an enforced standard.
    I was tying to point out that they should have a standard
    for cellular as they have a standard for video compression.

    > Remember, the government (that's who does enforcement) usually does
    > everything worse than anyone else.


    But it gets done!

    > >There is many other technologies that could be put to task
    > >as a better interface technology for cellular devices.

    >
    > What do you have against CDMA?


    Lets go on a check list.

    It's proprietary.
    Any standard should be public domain.
    (ie) an open standard.

    It's wideband.
    The large size of the channel makes it hard to
    aggregate the spectrum efficiently.
    With WCDMA at 5Mhz wide,
    it will hog an entire band with no room to spare.
    And the smaller slivers of bandwidth will be unusable.

    It's fixed bandwidth.
    Any standard digital transmission method should
    be variable bandwidth, so the channel can be
    adjusted in size to fit the data usage and
    available bandwidth.
    From a few Khz wide to 10Mhz wide if needed.

    It is an erratic coverage technology.
    you can reuse a large portion of the bandwidth
    for each site, but the cells island themselves when
    each cell has close to maximum capacity.
    (ie) dropped calls instead of a hand off, and
    unusable signal even at high signal levels.
    It is hard to keep a coherent coverage area
    during high usage because of that.

    It is not fully compatible with previous open standards.
    And call handoffs should be supported in either direction.
    (ie) it should be compatible with AMPS.
    Why do you think color TVs can view B&W movies and
    B&W TVs can view color movies, all be it in black and white.
    Why do you think that all windows OSs can run programs
    designed for DOS 1.0
    Backward compatibility is the way to go!
    It may be hard to design a system like that, but it can be done.

    It is not optimized.
    The primary features of CDMA is not utilized in the cellular field.
    it is something that was jury-rigged to work in that application.
    (ie)
    Pseudo noise generator codes are not needed and are a waste of equipment.
    (on and on)

    All it all.......
    The new digital standard should be.....
    And open standard.
    It should be able to operate in a narrow bandwidth.
    It should be able to go wide band if needed.
    It should be a stable coverage technology.
    It should be backward compatible with AMPS TDMA and GSM.
    it should be optimized totally for that application.
  3. Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    > But would you really want to hold a 3 watt transmitting antenna up to
    > your skull? (And are you aware of the temperature the heat sink would
    > reach?)


    I don't know. What's the power output of handheld AMPS phones like my old
    Nokia 100? I've never used a bagphone.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  4. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > > Why do you think that all windows OSs can run programs
    > > designed for DOS 1.0

    >
    > Give me a break. This is absolutely not true. Newer Windows operating
    > systems built on the NT kernel can't even run Windows 3.1 16-bit programs
    > (lack of a 16-bit compatibility layer in the OS is the major reason NT,

    2000
    > and XP crash a lot less than 95, 98 and Me).


    They implement a full virtual machine.
    It runs DOS in that virtual machine.
    If that virtual machine crashes, it doesn't
    take down the entire computer because,
    The VM is just another protected mode program.

    And an Intel 2G celeron can also boot from DOS 1.0
    if you want true backward compatibility.
    Dual/Tri/Quad booting is a wonderful thing.

    Yes, even the celerons are full 8086 compatible.
  5. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > They implement a full virtual machine.
    > It runs DOS in that virtual machine.


    Perhaps some DOS apps will run. How about legacy 16-bit Windows apps?

    Do you have some laying around to try?

    > And an Intel 2G celeron can also boot from DOS 1.0
    > if you want true backward compatibility.
    > Dual/Tri/Quad booting is a wonderful thing.
    >
    > Yes, even the celerons are full 8086 compatible.


    The CPUs are backwards compatible. The operating systems aren't. Not fully,
    anyhow.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  6. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > > They implement a full virtual machine.
    > > It runs DOS in that virtual machine.

    >
    > Perhaps some DOS apps will run. How about legacy 16-bit Windows apps?
    >
    > Do you have some laying around to try?


    Apps don't lay around on my computer system. :)

    About half of the apps on my win XP 2Gig celeron system
    is 16 bit win 3.1/3.11 apps.
    I have around a 100 programs loaded on my system.
    And around 40 to 50 16 bit apps.

    It runs 16 bit apps in a virtual machine running the
    16 bit process handlers.
    The only problem is that all the 16 bit apps running at that
    time is ran on the same VM.
    If one crashes, it can crash all the other
    16bit apps running at that time.

    All newer Pentium and higher CPUs can run multiple
    VMs that are emulated by the CPU.
    The VMs are specifically designed to handle backward
    compatibility with older programs.
    You can load each one up with it's own TSRs and OSs
    The programs in each one think they are loaded on
    a complete and open system.

    The only problems I have seen with older 16 bit apps
    is they don't always show up on the loaded programs menu.
    So that means you have to uninstall them manually if you
    wanted to get rid of them.

    And I have found that XP's emulation of a dos machine
    is far better than win 95s emulation.
    A lot of programs I couldn't run on a win 95 dos box,
    I can run on a win XP dos box.
    There is only one dos program I have that can't be ran on
    a dos box.
    And that is Generic software's cad 3D.
    And I can still run that from a floppy booting from dos 3.0 :)
  7. CharlesH

    CharlesH Guest

    (( WARNING... TOPIC DRIFT ALERT )) :)
    Re: running DOS programs under XP...
    Typically, the DOS programs which are difficult to support under a
    virtual machine are those which directly access hardware device registers,
    such as games accessing the video or sound card. Since the virtual machine
    does not know the meaning of the registers on all of the specific cards
    out there, how can it safely encapsulate them?
  8. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > The only problems I have seen with older 16 bit apps
    > is they don't always show up on the loaded programs menu.
    > So that means you have to uninstall them manually if you
    > wanted to get rid of them.


    Alright then, I'll defer to your superior experience. During the short time
    when I transitioned from 3.1 to 95 I ran some 16-bit apps and had buttloads
    of trouble doing so. Haven't touched 16-bit since then.

    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  9. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest

    > Typically, the DOS programs which are difficult to support under a
    > virtual machine are those which directly access hardware device registers,
    > such as games accessing the video or sound card. Since the virtual

    machine
    > does not know the meaning of the registers on all of the specific cards
    > out there, how can it safely encapsulate them?
    >


    100% correct.

    Usually it will emulate a generic VGA video ram layout for the
    VM to write to.
    But if the video card drivers are right, the VM should have a
    complete mirror of the actual video ram for it to write to.
  10. N9WOS

    N9WOS Guest


    > Alright then, I'll defer to your superior experience. During the short

    time
    > when I transitioned from 3.1 to 95 I ran some 16-bit apps and had

    buttloads
    > of trouble doing so. Haven't touched 16-bit since then.


    I have got to say that Microsoft really cleaned up their act when
    people had so many problems with win 95 and older programs.
    And they have really utilized the VM capability that was put into
    newer CPUs for that application.

    And another thing I like is where they have the compatibility menu.
    Where you can load older sets of process handlers for older programs
    to avoid any bugs between old programs and new process handlers.
  11. N9WOS <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> wrote:

    > And another thing I like is where they have the compatibility menu.
    > Where you can load older sets of process handlers for older programs
    > to avoid any bugs between old programs and new process handlers.


    Yes, I've noticed that. A rare Good Idea(tm) from Microsoft.


    --
    JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services
    22674 Motnocab Road * Apple Valley, CA 92307-1950
    Steve Sobol, Proprietor
    888.480.4NET (4638) * 248.724.4NET * sjsobol@JustThe.net
  12. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:09:31 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:

    >
    >But would you really want to hold a 3 watt transmitting antenna up to
    >your skull? (And are you aware of the temperature the heat sink would
    >reach?)


    That old company propaganda is STILL workin', ain't it?!...(c;

    Hmm...lessee....My UHF walkie on ham radio is 7 watts....
    Cops have walkies in that range, not to mention sitting in a car with
    a RADAR transmitter all day trying to catch speeders. It's on 10 Ghz.
    My home ham radio station is 1500 watts, but that has an outside
    antenna. No birds fry at that level.
    I used to work for a UHF TV station, A 10KW AM station with the
    building dead center between the directional array towers so hot you
    couldn't turn the flourescent lights off in the building with the
    transmitter still on the air, a 100KW FM station but I was only
    exposed a few hours a week working on the live transmitter with the
    cabinet doors open to see where that damned arcing was coming from.

    No, 3 measly watts right up against your head for 2 hours a day ISN'T
    dangerous......UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE LOWER AND
    LOWER POWER TRANSMITTERS ARE SAFER FOR THEM....the real reason behind
    that "Power Propaganda" finding from their government buddies.....

    A friend of mine died over 90, recently. His RF exposure started when
    he was about 15 years old at the first radio transmitter in SC. It
    was 10KW, I think I remember him telling me. He went from that to
    putting United Airlines on the HF bands back in the 30's. Remember in
    the movies where the guy was talking into the big microphone next to
    this huge transmitter, "Alameda calling China Clipper!...Alameda
    calling China Clipper!!....COME IN CHINA CLIPPER!!"......(white noise)
    He put those big transmitters in company control rooms across the
    country. In WW2 he was involved in RADAR, radiating himself with
    amazing power levels to bounce UHF signals off Zeros and Luftwaffe
    flights. After WW2 he became SC's first 2-way radio shop, Sikes
    Radio, now run by his son. I used to help keep his 1500 watt CW
    station on the air after he became to old and frail to do it, himself.
    NOONE could copy Morse like Linwood.

    He died of OLD AGE, not RF exposure......He was over 90, you know.
    I miss his stories about early broadcasting something awful.......



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  13. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    I have a terrible confession to make to you priests.....

    I'm STILL using the greatest little quickie word processor ever
    invented for a 4.77 Mhz PCXT.....PC Write. It hogs an awful 133K of
    RAM and runs like a scalded dog on a 4.77 Mhz PCXT. You should see it
    run in a DOS window from W98SE at 733 Mhz! 20,000 search and replace
    operations are faster than video refresh...scary.

    Ok, so it's not the prettiest thing out of the box....it's GREEN.
    But, I'll have the damned letter typed, edited, printed and mailed
    while we're still searching for that command we can't find in Word or
    Star Office...(sigh).

    PC-Write and a bagphone......retro-heaven!



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  14. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:11:44 -0600, Steven J Sobol
    <sjsobol@JustThe.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:


    >> But would you really want to hold a 3 watt transmitting antenna up to
    >> your skull? (And are you aware of the temperature the heat sink would
    >> reach?)


    >I don't know. What's the power output of handheld AMPS phones like my old
    >Nokia 100?


    No more than 600mw, so the 3 watt handset, aside from giving you only
    a few minutes of talk time, and throwing off 5 times the heat, will
    pump 5 times the power into your brain.

    I'm happy with a 600mw handset. I'm not looking for communications 50
    miles from civilization. If I really thought I needed it I'd carry a
    bagphone.
  15. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 01:14:17 -0600, Steven J Sobol
    <sjsobol@JustThe.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >Give me a break. This is absolutely not true. Newer Windows operating
    >systems built on the NT kernel can't even run Windows 3.1 16-bit programs
    >(lack of a 16-bit compatibility layer in the OS is the major reason NT, 2000
    >and XP crash a lot less than 95, 98 and Me).


    Not true at all. I run Q-Edit and Cardfile on XP every day. (Now if
    only I could get Diskedit to run on XP.)
  16. Al Klein

    Al Klein Guest

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:03:36 GMT, "N9WOS"
    <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net> posted in alt.cellular.verizon:

    >There is only one dos program I have that can't be ran on
    >a dos box.
    >And that is Generic software's cad 3D.


    Add any program that accesses the hardware directly. Dos disk editing
    programs won't run in 32 bit Windows (other than 95, and only to
    read).
  17. News Reader

    News Reader Guest

    > I'm happy with a 600mw handset. I'm not looking for communications 50
    > miles from civilization. If I really thought I needed it I'd carry a
    > bagphone.


    For those who need service like that, where can you buy a bagphone now?
    For a short period of time, VZW was only selling dual-band CDMA
    phones, until complaints got too numerous, they went back to tri-mode
    CDMA phones.
  18. Larry W4CSC

    Larry W4CSC Guest

    On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 02:31:19 -0600, News Reader
    <newsreader@spam.me.plz.cuz.i.hate.that.com> wrote:

    >> I'm happy with a 600mw handset. I'm not looking for communications 50
    >> miles from civilization. If I really thought I needed it I'd carry a
    >> bagphone.

    >
    >For those who need service like that, where can you buy a bagphone now?
    > For a short period of time, VZW was only selling dual-band CDMA
    >phones, until complaints got too numerous, they went back to tri-mode
    >CDMA phones.
    >

    http://www.concentric.net/~Campagna/

    or about $1 at your local thrift shops.

    But, alas, you can only have AMPS service if you had AMPS service,
    already. They won't start a new account for fear the FCC would never
    let them turn it off in 2008, which they may not anyway because the
    President's limo uses AMPS. FCC told them they couldn't turn it off
    as long as a significant, whatever that means, number of users were
    still using AMPS...er, ah....like OnStar's whole system.



    Larry W4CSC

    "Very funny, Scotty! Now, BEAM ME MY CLOTHES! KIRK OUT!"
  19. David S

    David S Guest

    On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 02:09:39 GMT, nospam@home.com (Larry W4CSC) chose to
    add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and everything:

    >On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 02:09:31 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.org> wrote:
    >
    >>But would you really want to hold a 3 watt transmitting antenna up to
    >>your skull? (And are you aware of the temperature the heat sink would
    >>reach?)

    >
    >That old company propaganda is STILL workin', ain't it?!...(c;
    >
    >Hmm...lessee....My UHF walkie on ham radio is 7 watts....
    >Cops have walkies in that range, not to mention sitting in a car with
    >a RADAR transmitter all day trying to catch speeders. It's on 10 Ghz.
    >My home ham radio station is 1500 watts, but that has an outside
    >antenna. No birds fry at that level.
    >I used to work for a UHF TV station, A 10KW AM station with the
    >building dead center between the directional array towers so hot you
    >couldn't turn the flourescent lights off in the building with the
    >transmitter still on the air, a 100KW FM station but I was only
    >exposed a few hours a week working on the live transmitter with the
    >cabinet doors open to see where that damned arcing was coming from.
    >
    >No, 3 measly watts right up against your head for 2 hours a day ISN'T
    >dangerous......UNLESS YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THEM BELIEVE LOWER AND
    >LOWER POWER TRANSMITTERS ARE SAFER FOR THEM....the real reason behind
    >that "Power Propaganda" finding from their government buddies.....


    Hey, Lar', last time you renewed your ham ticket, did you read and sign the
    RF safety statement? It's a new (well, several years now) requirement for
    EVERYBODY, even if they've had their license for a million years like you.

    --
    NOTE: the virus mails are starting again, so change nut to net to reply.
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "The worms go in, the worms go out, the worms play pinochle on your snout."
    - Gil Grissom, who claimed it was an old nursery rhyme
  20. David S

    David S Guest

    On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 18:03:36 GMT, "N9WOS" <n9wos@nobug.worldnet.att.net>
    chose to add this to the great equation of life, the universe, and
    everything:

    >> > They implement a full virtual machine.
    >> > It runs DOS in that virtual machine.

    >>
    >> Perhaps some DOS apps will run. How about legacy 16-bit Windows apps?
    >>
    >> Do you have some laying around to try?

    >
    >Apps don't lay around on my computer system. :)
    >
    >About half of the apps on my win XP 2Gig celeron system
    >is 16 bit win 3.1/3.11 apps.
    >I have around a 100 programs loaded on my system.
    >And around 40 to 50 16 bit apps.
    >
    >It runs 16 bit apps in a virtual machine running the
    >16 bit process handlers.
    >The only problem is that all the 16 bit apps running at that
    >time is ran on the same VM.
    >If one crashes, it can crash all the other
    >16bit apps running at that time.
    >
    >All newer Pentium and higher CPUs can run multiple
    >VMs that are emulated by the CPU.
    >The VMs are specifically designed to handle backward
    >compatibility with older programs.
    >You can load each one up with it's own TSRs and OSs
    >The programs in each one think they are loaded on
    >a complete and open system.
    >
    >The only problems I have seen with older 16 bit apps
    >is they don't always show up on the loaded programs menu.
    >So that means you have to uninstall them manually if you
    >wanted to get rid of them.
    >
    >And I have found that XP's emulation of a dos machine
    >is far better than win 95s emulation.
    >A lot of programs I couldn't run on a win 95 dos box,
    >I can run on a win XP dos box.
    >There is only one dos program I have that can't be ran on
    >a dos box.
    >And that is Generic software's cad 3D.
    >And I can still run that from a floppy booting from dos 3.0 :)


    C:\DOS
    C:\DOS\RUN
    RUN\DOS\RUN

    Windows 95:
    A 32 bit application on top of
    A 16 bit operating system running on
    An 8 bit computer emulating
    A 4 bit architecture written by
    A 2 bit company that won't stand
    One bit of competition

    --
    NOTE: the virus mails are starting again, so change nut to net to reply.
    David Streeter, "an internet god" -- Dave Barry
    http://home.att.net/~dwstreeter
    Expect a train on ANY track at ANY time.
    "I'd rather not talk about money. It's kind of gross." - Barbra Streisand,
    asked what she was paid for 'The Mirror Has Two Faces'

Welcome to VerizonForums!

Unfortunately you can't reply until you log in or sign up.


Forgot your password?