| arlen holder <arlen@arlen.com>: Dec 28 09:52PM Ooma tells me speed & jitter are ok but I have 0.25% packet loss. What happens, as a result, is that in any given phone call, the voice drops, or is blurbled, for seconds at a time. I don't quite understand how losing one packet in 400 on average is causing that, but they said take it up with the WISP who has already said it's as good as he can make it. Ooma suggested a new cordless phone set. Is there a cordless phone set you're happy with? The base MUST be a full phone (speaker + dialer + wired handset) with as many cordless as is feasible (usually 2 to 4 come with the set). Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.) |
| "pfjw@aol.com" <peterwieck33@gmail.com>: Dec 29 05:09AM -0800 On Friday, December 28, 2018 at 4:53:01 PM UTC-5, arlen holder wrote: > set). > Ooma tells me packet loss should be 0% ... do you have a good test for > that? (Ooma didn't have a test we could run.) God help us, its a PHONE! All that is necessary is to be able to understand the occasional actual caller. Any given Panasonic/AT&T/Samsung cordless set will do the trick with neither agony nor anxiety attached. Should be in the $30 - $50 range for a system with, perhaps, three or four remote sets with it. Just pick an open frequency when you set up. The typical phone has 16 options. Some more. Sheesh! Peter Wieck Melrose Park, PA |
| Phil Allison <pallison49@gmail.com>: Dec 28 07:51PM -0800 Look165 wrote: > One works with electromagnetic force, the other works with piezoelectric > force. > The first is low impedance and good for low frequencies, ** The two facts are not related. > The other is high impedance and good for high frequencies, it uses voltage. ** See above. > With a typical 8-Ohm or 32-Ohm output, the crystal headphone is useless. ** Utter nonsense. In the 1960s, transistor radios and came supplied with crystal earpieces. .... Phil |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 07:18PM -0700 On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote: > you're asking the wrong people. there's a *huge* demand for apple > development and it pays *quite* well. I'm sure it does if you're in the right field, but the world I live in doesn't do Apple. If we do something for iPhones it is only as peripherals. There may be emergency dispatch centers that run on os x but I don't know of any. Generally the RFQ's spec Windows Server, SQL Server, ESRI, and so forth. Even ESRI is a killer; ArcDesktop can run on a Mac -- sort of. Fire up Boot Camp or VMWare and run Windows. I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could meet TEMPEST requirements. I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's not been my meal ticket. |
| rbowman <bowman@montana.com>: Dec 28 07:25PM -0700 On 12/28/2018 08:42 AM, nospam wrote: > not at all. write a decent app and you'll recover any costs many times > over. there's nothing to deal with the app store either. when the app > is done, submit it. Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the way to go. > xcode is free and pick up a cheap iphone for testing. done. and if > you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the > simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware. Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore... >> powerhouse but it's acceptable. Apple might be trimming prices a bit but >> they're not there yet. > a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad. I never said it was. However it is an Android device that I can side load an apk on. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:43PM -0500 In article <g8o45vForqhU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > Therein lies the rub in our business model. We're doing proprietary > applications for a very limited audience and the app store is not the > way to go. you didn't mention proprietary apps, however, there are alternative methods for app deployment that do *not* involve the app store at all for exactly that scenario. the app store is not the only option. > > you're *that* cheap (and not interested in quality of work), use the > > simulator and let your beta testers test on actual hardware. > Ah, yes, the simulator... Snore... you've never used it, so you're not in a position to comment. it was simply a suggestion for those who *really* want to cheap out. > >> they're not there yet. > > a b&n nook is in no way comparable to an iphone or ipad. > I never said it was. yet you compared its price to an iphone or ipad. the reason it's $50 is because its specs are lower. > However it is an Android device that I can side > load an apk on. that would depend on what the apk does. if it needs functionality not found in a $50 device, you're going to have problems. |
| nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid>: Dec 28 10:43PM -0500 In article <g8o3ouFopeqU1@mid.individual.net>, rbowman > I did work on one project that used Macs although I was not involved in > that part. The early Mac that was a cube was the only thing that could > meet TEMPEST requirements. the cube was a *long* time ago. > I'm sure you will reel of all sorts of counter examples but I've always > associated Apple with consumer oriented devices and software and that's > not been my meal ticket. there's nothing wrong with focusing on consumer products. it's a *huge* and *very* lucrative market, although apple is not solely consumer focused. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to sci.electronics.repair+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No Response to "Digest for sci.electronics.repair@googlegroups.com - 7 updates in 3 topics"
Post a Comment