WinMor?

[W3WN]

ARRL earlier posted a news item about a new WinLink 2000 - related protocol called WinMor.

While details are sketchy, it alleges that it
(a) doesn't require proprietary hardware, just a sound card,
(b) it rivals PACTOR I & III, and
(c) uses less bandwith than PACTOR to accomplish the same things.

Anyone know anything about it?

Link is at http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1

73

[N8YX]

ARRL earlier posted a news item about a new WinLink 2000 - related protocol called WinMor.

While details are sketchy, it alleges that it
(a) doesn't require proprietary hardware, just a sound card,
(b) it rivals PACTOR I & III, and
(c) uses less bandwith than PACTOR to accomplish the same things.

Anyone know anything about it?

Link is at http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1

73

This begs the question,

"Does the software support the use of busy-channel detection"?

[kd6nig]

ARRL earlier posted a news item about a new WinLink 2000 - related protocol called WinMor.

While details are sketchy, it alleges that it
(a) doesn't require proprietary hardware, just a sound card,
(b) it rivals PACTOR I & III, and
(c) uses less bandwith than PACTOR to accomplish the same things.

Anyone know anything about it?

Link is at http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2008/08/26/10284/?nc=1

73

This begs the question,

"Does the software support the use of busy-channel detection"?

And if so, is the user able to disable it? I recall WL2K having this but it being disabled, and people being encouraged to do so. Having it there is one thing, having it required is another.

[W3WN]

This begs the question,

"Does the software support the use of busy-channel detection"?

And if so, is the user able to disable it? I recall WL2K having this but it being disabled, and people being encouraged to do so. Having it there is one thing, having it required is another.
There are no details, so I have no answer -- frankly, that's why I asked.

I would hope that it does, and if it does, I would hope that it's use in encouraged, not discouraged!

But before jumping to any conclusions, let's find out for sure?

[KB3LAZ]

Winmor, I have never even used winlink!

[kd6nig]

Why do I have a feeling the release will include the inference that by using this, hams can once again save the world?

You watch though, it will sell-but if its not from the original Winlink makers, they will probably be mad that its cutting in on their "wannabe savior" sales.

[kb2vxa]

An old familiar tale.

[N2RJ]

Am I the only one seeing this as making the problem worse?

Now there is virtually ZERO cost barrier for BoatLinkers to clog up the ham bands with their WinLid garbage.

[W3WN]

Am I the only one seeing this as making the problem worse?

Now there is virtually ZERO cost barrier for BoatLinkers to clog up the ham bands with their WinLid garbage.

OTOH, it also opens the mode up to the rest of us (should we so desire to use it) because we also don't have the cost barrier of purchasing a PACTOR III modem.

This is not to say that the misuse of the Amateur bands in general, and the WinLink protocols in particular, by boaters isn't a serious problem. It is, and it needs to be addressed and solved. I just hate to see a mode with such potential be tarred because certain users are misusing it, and certain alleged amateurs promoting this misuse for their own purposes continue to get away with it.

[kd6nig]

At least if its an open protocol, you'll be able to see who just stepped on you, and possibly read their mail.

If its not encrypted somehow (another question that remains to fall on the deaf ears of the FCC, btw) it probably won't be received well at all.

Boaters won't want people reading their email, though packet users have tolerated it for years. That, in my opinion, is what really places it in the bad column-not only do they stomp you, you cannot tell if what they are sending is within Ham Radio rules.

If its an open readable protocol it won't cause any change. The one thing that really attracts people to Winlink is the privacy aspect. If it wasn't like that, they would pay for SailMail. People are quite picky when it comes to email.

[N2RJ]

I predict that they'll simply either listen on the same frequencies or "allocate" additional WinLink listening frequencies for this protocol.

They'll use up 2x the bandwidth in no time.

The people who use P3 for pseudo-encryption will not move away from their SCS modems, especially given that some probably do illegal activity with it such as trading stocks.

[W3WN]

I predict that they'll simply either listen on the same frequencies or "allocate" additional WinLink listening frequencies for this protocol.

They'll use up 2x the bandwidth in no time.

The people who use P3 for pseudo-encryption will not move away from their SCS modems, especially given that some probably do illegal activity with it such as trading stocks.
Banning Pactor III won't stop these people. They'll find another way.

Either the Amateur community as a whole finds a working solution, or the illegal users (be they users of WinLink, WinMor, or whatever else they can find) will keep taking frequencies for their use to the exclusion of all others. And revoking the US tickets won't be an answer, as many already have licenses from other countries... they'll simply move their operations off-shore, so to speak.

[w8nsi]

Winmor, I have never even used winlink!
So I guess you need to WinSome first? :roll: :)

[ad4mg]

Winmor, I have never even used winlink!

You need a sailboat. :shock:

:mrgreen:

[W7XF]

Hmmmm..
I wonder.... do they make MacMor?? Or LinuxMor??? Or even UNIXMor??? :think

[M0GLO]

WinMor huh? As in uses more bandwidth and pisses off more people than WinLink?

[W5GA]

The next new protocol should be called NoMore. NoMore bandwidth than CW will work fine.

[M0GLO]

The next new protocol should be called NoMore. NoMore bandwidth than CW will work fine.

Not that noise again.

CW is mighty narropw all right but there IS plenty of room for other protocols.
Wide AM and WinLink need to take a freakin hike though.

[kd6nig]

The next new protocol should be called NoMore. NoMore bandwidth than CW will work fine.

Call it none, they want the internet on Ham Radio, if they want the internet, they should just use the internet. Take Ham Radio out of the picture and use a commercial service instead.

[W5GA]

The next new protocol should be called NoMore. NoMore bandwidth than CW will work fine.

Not that noise again.

CW is mighty narropw all right but there IS plenty of room for other protocols.
Wide AM and WinLink need to take a freakin hike though.

I'm not trying to say we should all do CW by any means. However, with the notable exception of PSK, most of these new modes seem to be real band hogs. WinLink isn't even radio.

[N8YX]

WinLink isn't even radio.

Nor is Echolink (for the most part), but the proselytizers and Apologistas keep trying to convince us otherwise... :wall

[kd6nig]

WinLink isn't even radio.

Nor is Echolink (for the most part), but the proselytizers and Apologistas keep trying to convince us otherwise... :wall

Its as much radio as anyone using a cell phone, which, surprisingly enough, most people don't even really realize :)

[X-Rated]

BUMP ***

Anyone on WINMOR yet? How's that working out?

[KG4CGC]

And can anyone receive it and decode its contents? Unless that is possible it is illegal to use on the ham bands.