Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?

To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
Subject: Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?
From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:51:30 -0900
Delivered-To: ti-hardware-outgoing@towerguard.unix.edu.sollentuna.se
Delivered-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org
In-Reply-To: <005601be5485$713d9f40$c9648ed1@vizzini.rdtech.>
Reply-To: ti-hardware@lists.ticalc.org


>From: Grant Stockly <gussie@alaska.net>
>>>Not necessarily true in either case.  If one were to find an
>>>integrated transmitter/receiver that would work except
>>>required input different than the TI-Protocol (I2C for example),
>>>it might be simpler to use it instead of designing a new transmitter/
>>>receiver pair, even if that use required software to drive the port.
>>
>>The point is that you already have an application and a protocol designed,
>>you just want to bridge the two.  Thats where software comes into play.
>
>
>Actually no, my point was that it is possably, and in some cases
>desirable to build a radio link that does require software to drive
>it. I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT IS THE BEST SOLUTION!
>Just that its not "fu**in stupid" to do so.

I wasn't replying to you, but the orrigional guy...

References:

Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?

From: "David Knaack" <dknaack@geocities.com>

Prev: Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?
Next: Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread