karn@petrus.UUCP (Phil R. Karn) (11/06/85)
M 11273 JEFF WARD (ARRL,2977) 11/ 6/85 9:49 AM L:27 KEYS:/REVIEW/DEFENDING MYSELF/ A: 10068 TO: NK6K, ka9q, WA7GXD, ARRL RE: Message from K1BC The review of the TNCs that was in November QST was turned in in March of this year. Therefore, it does not reflect developments from this summer or even those of late spring. At the time that the review was written, we (Jon Bloom and I) did not know the exact nature of the TAPR protocol problems. Even now, when these problems are completely understood, they could hardly be described to someone in a the context of a product review. As for the fact that TNC1 does not support AX.25V2, there were no TNCs (at that time) that did support the updated protocol. I agree, though, that this should have been mentioned. "ARRL continues to write only glowing reviews." I wrote the review, and the notes on the Heath TNC were filled in by Mark Wilson, AA2Z. We liked the TNCs, they worked well, they were by far the best on the market. The design and manufacture of the TAPR TNC was a milestone in Amateur Radio, a feat of creativity and perserverance. We wanted to end up with a glowing review. The fix for NOVRAM scrambling that AEA used is, I think, the same one that was written up in an issue of PSR this year. I can't find the exact issue, but someone will remember. Jeff
tro@adiron.UUCP (Tom Olin) (11/08/85)
I realize that there will be some lag time between the receipt of an article and its publication, but 8 months (March to November) seems a little extreme, especially when the article deals with rapidly changing technology. Was this an isolated case, or is it the norm for QST? If 8 months is a reasonable lag time, perhaps the computer/software industry has been ignoring the publishing industry. Tom - WB2HLY