Elecraft › [K3]

W9OY on P3

Classic

List

Threaded

43 messages Options

123

Joe Subich, W4TV-4

Re: W9OY on P3

> Quite so, and if I could order one of the new QRP 1500s for
> what they cost in the US rather than what we'll end up paying
> over here I'd be tempted to get one just to try it out.

Given their list price, the Flex-1500 looks like an interesting
alternative to the SDR-IQ as a software panadapter and/or engine
for running CW Skimmer. Forget about the QPR transmitter and
use the receiver only. It's a shame that Flex is still wedded
to the same old wideband downcovert and I/Q audio technology
instead of moving to direct DSP technology like Perseus, etc.

73,

... Joe, W4TV

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Julian, G4ILO
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 9:43 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>
>
>
> Quite so, and if I could order one of the new QRP 1500s for
> what they cost in the US rather than what we'll end up paying
> over here I'd be tempted to get one just to try it out. Most
> of the issues seem to be a consequence of the software
> implementation rather than problems with the idea of SDR
> itself. Installing net frameworks and virtual audio cables -
> let's face it not all radio enthusiasts are computer wizards
> and even those of us who are supposed to be knowledgeable are
> not immune to blue screens of death and the like. And I think
> the CW latency issues I've read about are due largely to the
> fact that Windows isn't a realtime OS so you need a powerful
> CPU and plenty of buffering to ensure that pauses don't occur
> when the OS is busy doing something else.
>
> If the software side came on a dedicated board with its own
> processor and OS then you wouldn't have to worry about any of
> that, except to update the software now and again. But hang
> on, isn't that more or less what the K3 is, except you get
> knobs and buttons as well?
>
>
> Arie Kleingeld PA3A-2 wrote:
> >
> >
> > The flex radio's are fine and very good radio's.
> >
> > The Flex-radio concept is just different form the Elecraft concept.
> >
> >
>
>
> -----
> Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222.
> * G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
> * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
> * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4598167.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

pd0psb

Re: W9OY on P3

Wait a minute, Joe, are you suggesting an "Ele-Flex" combination here?
It takes more than a Real Man to make a suggestion like that in this forum! :-)

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

Arie Kleingeld PA3A-2

Re: W9OY on P3

Yes,

That thought has occurred to me too. A flex 1500 as second rx with panorama
view combined with a K3. Or a RFSPACE IQ for that matter. It's not a new
idea.
But I think I will settle for something simpler than that.
The reason why I bought the K3 instead of a Flex is that I do not like
clicking the mouse in everything I do.

73,
Arie PA3A

=============================
Wait a minute, Joe, are you suggesting an "Ele-Flex" combination here?
It takes more than a Real Man to make a suggestion like that in this forum!
:-)

73'
Paul
PD0PSB

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

ab2tc

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by alorona

I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't (or developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the performance of a PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. With that said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load on a 3GHz machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz and 2Gb of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all of the following running:

LP-Bridge
HRD
PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
Iexplore composing this message
Thunderbird mail client
DX Atlas

I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I think most people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a joy. I am a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent prioritization of tasks.

AB2TC - Knut

Al Lorona wrote

Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.

Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU you should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run queue determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if you don't have to wait at all.

A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several other things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better performance.

Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>

> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had better
> think about a new computer first.
<snip>

lstavenhagen

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by David Christ

Quite true...
Also, with an SDR, just like any other SW based gear, the SW has to work. The hardware is useless if the software is broken. All it takes is one or two hefty bugs to get by their QA and you're screwed. At that point, you have to get the manufacturer a) to reproduce/recognize the bug and b) fix it in a timely manner. If you're fighting a 3rd party issue (i.e. a bug in Windows or some other software an SDR depends on), you're potentially dead in the water with a total loss. These are _big_ challenges to SW customers as we all know.

With fully hardware/firmware defined rigs like our elecrafts and others we're not as dependent on that. I.e. elecraft writes the firmware and designs the hardware so they own the whole thing. And 3rd party issues aren't going to be nearly as big of a factor....

LS
W5QD, K2 #6882

Jack Smith-6

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by ab2tc

The graphics processor makes a big difference. I have several Dell
SX-260 computers that run SDR programs painfully slow, despite 2 GB of
RAM and 2.5 GHz CPU.

It turns out that Dell's graphic processor has no dedicated memory but
rather shares normal RAM. That creates a huge bottleneck when running a
graphics intensive program such as all the SDR software. Some is
slightly worse than other but they all bog way down on the SX-260
compared with a machine with a separate graphics card and memory. Same
SDR program on the SX-260 may run 70% CPU but only 10% on a computer
with a separate graphics card and memory, with similar CPU speed and RAM.

Jack K8ZOA

On 2/19/2010 4:18 PM, ab2tc wrote:

> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't (or
> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the performance of a
> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. With that
> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load on a 3GHz
> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz and 2Gb
> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all of the
> following running:
>
> LP-Bridge
> HRD
> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
> Iexplore composing this message
> Thunderbird mail client
> DX Atlas
>
> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I think most
> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a joy. I am
> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization
> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent prioritization of
> tasks.
>
> AB2TC - Knut
>
>
> Al Lorona wrote:
>
>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>
>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU you
>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run queue
>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if you
>> don't have to wait at all.
>>
>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several other
>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better performance.
>>
>>
>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had better
>>> think about a new computer first.
>>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>
>

alorona

Re: W9OY on P3

Again, you cannot look at *only* CPU utilization and make a judgment about the software, load, etc. Yes, it *could* be a problem, but the point I'm making is you don't know by looking *only* at CPU. It frequently is a symptom of something else happening -- the real bottleneck. For instance, it could be a symptom of running out of memory, but it shows up as CPU because there's a lot of paging going on.

To help understand this, imagine you walked into McDonald's. As soon as you put in your lunch order, the people behind the counter start running around like crazy. You get your order in 5 seconds. You go, "Wow, that was fast!"

The next day you walk in and there's 30 people in line ahead of you. The people behind the counter are still working like crazy and each lunch still takes only 5 seconds, but you have to wait a lot longer.

The workers are the CPU, the customers are the run queue.

We haven't even started to talk about swapping, disk I/O, and other I/O.

You might say, "Yeah, but if you could hire other workers that worked even faster, then each job might take only 2 seconds."

That's true, but in our example it would cut down your wait time from 150 seconds to 60 seconds. That's a great improvement, but chances are the user (you) would still complain about it.

Thanks for reading. This'll be the last time I'll post on this, this has all the markings of one of those threads Eric will have to close. You guys go one and have the last word.

----- Original Message ----
From: Jack Smith <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Fri, February 19, 2010 1:46:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3

The graphics processor makes a big difference. I have several Dell
SX-260 computers that run SDR programs painfully slow, despite 2 GB of
RAM and 2.5 GHz CPU.

It turns out that Dell's graphic processor has no dedicated memory but
rather shares normal RAM. That creates a huge bottleneck when running a
graphics intensive program such as all the SDR software. Some is
slightly worse than other but they all bog way down on the SX-260
compared with a machine with a separate graphics card and memory. Same
SDR program on the SX-260 may run 70% CPU but only 10% on a computer
with a separate graphics card and memory, with similar CPU speed and RAM.

Jack K8ZOA

On 2/19/2010 4:18 PM, ab2tc wrote:

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Steve Ellington

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by ab2tc

I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on various
computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB ram. I'm
running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge etc.....My CPU
usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to 4%.
Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time.
My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR at all.
Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR lightning
fast...No one can seem to explain the difference.
Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you are running
more programs with less CPU and RAM?
Steve
N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3

>
> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't (or
> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the performance of
> a
> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. With
> that
> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load on a
> 3GHz
> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz and
> 2Gb
> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all of the
> following running:
>
> LP-Bridge
> HRD
> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
> Iexplore composing this message
> Thunderbird mail client
> DX Atlas
>
> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I think
> most
> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a joy. I
> am
> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization
> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent prioritization
> of
> tasks.
>
> AB2TC - Knut
>
>
> Al Lorona wrote:
>>
>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>
>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU you
>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run queue
>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if you
>> don't have to wait at all.
>>
>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several other
>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better performance.
>>
>>
>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>
>>
>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had better
>>> think about a new computer first.
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html
> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date: 02/19/10
02:34:00

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

W6ODJ

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Jack Smith-6

One problem with radios like the Flex hasn't been mentioned much. It is the RF feedback problem. I have seen demos of the Flex in action, and practically every cable in sight had to be loaded down with chokes to keep the RF out of the transceiver control circuits.

On the face of it, the P3 in its small metal box adjacent to the K3 should be better isolated against RF feedback. I sure hope Elecraft is checking this aspect closely. There are interconnects between K3 and P3. Are they vulnerable?

73,

Oliver
W6ODJ

On 19 Feb 2010, at 1:46 PM, Jack Smith wrote:

> The graphics processor makes a big difference. I have several Dell
> SX-260 computers that run SDR programs painfully slow, despite 2 GB of
> RAM and 2.5 GHz CPU.
>
> It turns out that Dell's graphic processor has no dedicated memory but
> rather shares normal RAM. That creates a huge bottleneck when running a
> graphics intensive program such as all the SDR software. Some is
> slightly worse than other but they all bog way down on the SX-260
> compared with a machine with a separate graphics card and memory. Same
> SDR program on the SX-260 may run 70% CPU but only 10% on a computer
> with a separate graphics card and memory, with similar CPU speed and RAM.
>
> Jack K8ZOA
>
>
> On 2/19/2010 4:18 PM, ab2tc wrote:
>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't (or
>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the performance of a
>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. With that
>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load on a 3GHz
>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz and 2Gb
>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all of the
>> following running:
>>
>> LP-Bridge
>> HRD
>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
>> Iexplore composing this message
>> Thunderbird mail client
>> DX Atlas
>>
>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I think most
>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a joy. I am
>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization
>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent prioritization of
>> tasks.
>>
>> AB2TC - Knut
>>
>>
>> Al Lorona wrote:
>>
>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>>
>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU you
>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run queue
>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if you
>>> don't have to wait at all.
>>>
>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several other
>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had better
>>>> think about a new computer first.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>

Steve Ellington

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Jack Smith-6

I forgot to mention that I DO have a separate graphics card and memory both
on my old and new dual CPU Dell. Doesn't help usage at all.
Steve
N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jack Smith" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:46 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3

> The graphics processor makes a big difference. I have several Dell
> SX-260 computers that run SDR programs painfully slow, despite 2 GB of
> RAM and 2.5 GHz CPU.
>
> It turns out that Dell's graphic processor has no dedicated memory but
> rather shares normal RAM. That creates a huge bottleneck when running a
> graphics intensive program such as all the SDR software. Some is
> slightly worse than other but they all bog way down on the SX-260
> compared with a machine with a separate graphics card and memory. Same
> SDR program on the SX-260 may run 70% CPU but only 10% on a computer
> with a separate graphics card and memory, with similar CPU speed and RAM.
>
> Jack K8ZOA
>
>
> On 2/19/2010 4:18 PM, ab2tc wrote:
>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't (or
>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the performance of
>> a
>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it. With
>> that
>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load on a
>> 3GHz
>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz and
>> 2Gb
>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all of the
>> following running:
>>
>> LP-Bridge
>> HRD
>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
>> Iexplore composing this message
>> Thunderbird mail client
>> DX Atlas
>>
>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I think
>> most
>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a joy. I
>> am
>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization
>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent prioritization
>> of
>> tasks.
>>
>> AB2TC - Knut
>>
>>
>> Al Lorona wrote:
>>
>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>>
>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU you
>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run queue
>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if you
>>> don't have to wait at all.
>>>
>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several other
>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had better
>>>> think about a new computer first.
>>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

KK7P

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Steve Ellington

> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on various
> computers while running PowerSDR.
The best place to find answers to questions about PowerSDR is probably
the knowledge base at Flex's website. There are lots of articles on how
to tune a computer for best performance to run PowerSDR. There are a
ton of variables that affect it, and it is easier and harder than you
think. Prepare to invest several hours learning details about your
computer's hardware, BIOS and OS.

73,

Lyle KK7P
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Steve Ellington

Re: W9OY on P3

Naw....I've spent hours looking at Flex's site with nothing helpful. I've
been in the computer industry for 30 years and still don't understand them.
Oh well....Let's change the subject.
Steve
N4LQ
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lyle Johnson" <[hidden email]>
To: "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>
Cc: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>; <[hidden email]>
Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3

>
>> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on various
>> computers while running PowerSDR.
> The best place to find answers to questions about PowerSDR is probably
> the knowledge base at Flex's website. There are lots of articles on how
> to tune a computer for best performance to run PowerSDR. There are a
> ton of variables that affect it, and it is easier and harder than you
> think. Prepare to invest several hours learning details about your
> computer's hardware, BIOS and OS.
>
> 73,
>
> Lyle KK7P

David Herring-2

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Steve Ellington

Hi All,

I have a degree in computer science and 25 years in the industry, and
*I* wish someone could explain the disparity in performance among PC
makes and models. Hi Hi

The fact is there are a very large number of factors that come into
play. I can list some here...

CPU -- 1 or 2?

Video card -- on board processing? The same video board can display
vastly different performance depending on OS and driver. There is
also differences between models within the same line.

Memory -- not just how much you have, but how much is actually
available for allocation to the apps.

Disk -- when you get to a point where the OS has to page memory out to
to disk, the speed of the disk will make a huge difference in
performance. Granted you are already compromised in performance at
this point, but a faster disk will minimize the pain. Sometimes by an
order of magnitude.

Drivers -- version and vendor make a big difference here. Some drivers
perform well. Others are junk. Hard to know which is which.

Junk Software -- many vendors load up the PC with pure garbage that
suck up resources and provide little benefit. Sadly you don't always
know that this stuff is running or what it's doing.

Background processes -- antivirus, malware scanners, file indexing,
etc. could impact performance in non-intuitive ways.

I doubt I've even scratched the surface here, but I think we begin to
see that the combinations of factors at play here makes for quite a
challenge in explaining the disparity among machines.

Sometimes an older PC will run things faster because it has less
unneeded garbage on it and better drivers. It could also have less
bloat (XP is less bloated than Vista, for example).

When I get a PC, the first thing I do is wipe the hard drive and load
my own clean OS. It's a pain but it mitigates many of the problems
here and I have always had better performance afterward.

Now I do not just reload the OS from the vendor supplied disks -- that
just loads the same junk back on. I reload using a fresh copy
purchased "off the shelf."

Hope that sheds at least a little light on the issue.

73
David. K6DCH.

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:14 PM, "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on
> various
> computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB
> ram. I'm
> running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge
> etc.....My CPU
> usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to
> 4%.
> Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time.
> My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR at
> all.
> Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR lightning
> fast...No one can seem to explain the difference.
> Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you are
> running
> more programs with less CPU and RAM?
> Steve
> N4LQ
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>
>
>>
>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't
>> (or
>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the
>> performance of
>> a
>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it.
>> With
>> that
>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load
>> on a
>> 3GHz
>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz
>> and
>> 2Gb
>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all
>> of the
>> following running:
>>
>> LP-Bridge
>> HRD
>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
>> Iexplore composing this message
>> Thunderbird mail client
>> DX Atlas
>>
>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I
>> think
>> most
>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a
>> joy. I
>> am
>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU utilization
>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent
>> prioritization
>> of
>> tasks.
>>
>> AB2TC - Knut
>>
>>
>> Al Lorona wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>>
>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU
>>> you
>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run
>>> queue
>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if
>>> you
>>> don't have to wait at all.
>>>
>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several
>>> other
>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better
>>> performance.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so anyone
>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had
>>>> better
>>>> think about a new computer first.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html
>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ---
> ---
> ---
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date:
> 02/19/10
> 02:34:00
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

David Herring-2

Re: W9OY on P3

One point I forgot to make in my last post is that each point I
listed, both singularly and in combination with the others, directly
impacts CPU utilization.

73
David K6DCH

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:04 PM, "David Herring, K6DCH" <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I have a degree in computer science and 25 years in the industry, and
> *I* wish someone could explain the disparity in performance among PC
> makes and models. Hi Hi
>
> The fact is there are a very large number of factors that come into
> play. I can list some here...
>
> CPU -- 1 or 2?
>
> Video card -- on board processing? The same video board can display
> vastly different performance depending on OS and driver. There is
> also differences between models within the same line.
>
> Memory -- not just how much you have, but how much is actually
> available for allocation to the apps.
>
> Disk -- when you get to a point where the OS has to page memory out to
> to disk, the speed of the disk will make a huge difference in
> performance. Granted you are already compromised in performance at
> this point, but a faster disk will minimize the pain. Sometimes by an
> order of magnitude.
>
> Drivers -- version and vendor make a big difference here. Some drivers
> perform well. Others are junk. Hard to know which is which.
>
> Junk Software -- many vendors load up the PC with pure garbage that
> suck up resources and provide little benefit. Sadly you don't always
> know that this stuff is running or what it's doing.
>
> Background processes -- antivirus, malware scanners, file indexing,
> etc. could impact performance in non-intuitive ways.
>
> I doubt I've even scratched the surface here, but I think we begin to
> see that the combinations of factors at play here makes for quite a
> challenge in explaining the disparity among machines.
>
> Sometimes an older PC will run things faster because it has less
> unneeded garbage on it and better drivers. It could also have less
> bloat (XP is less bloated than Vista, for example).
>
> When I get a PC, the first thing I do is wipe the hard drive and load
> my own clean OS. It's a pain but it mitigates many of the problems
> here and I have always had better performance afterward.
>
> Now I do not just reload the OS from the vendor supplied disks -- that
> just loads the same junk back on. I reload using a fresh copy
> purchased "off the shelf."
>
> Hope that sheds at least a little light on the issue.
>
> 73
> David. K6DCH.
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:14 PM, "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
>> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on
>> various
>> computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB
>> ram. I'm
>> running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge
>> etc.....My CPU
>> usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to
>> 4%.
>> Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time.
>> My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR at
>> all.
>> Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR
>> lightning
>> fast...No one can seem to explain the difference.
>> Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you are
>> running
>> more programs with less CPU and RAM?
>> Steve
>> N4LQ
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>
>> To: <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
>>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't
>>> (or
>>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the
>>> performance of
>>> a
>>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it.
>>> With
>>> that
>>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load
>>> on a
>>> 3GHz
>>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz
>>> and
>>> 2Gb
>>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all
>>> of the
>>> following running:
>>>
>>> LP-Bridge
>>> HRD
>>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
>>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
>>> Iexplore composing this message
>>> Thunderbird mail client
>>> DX Atlas
>>>
>>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I
>>> think
>>> most
>>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
>>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a
>>> joy. I
>>> am
>>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU
>>> utilization
>>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent
>>> prioritization
>>> of
>>> tasks.
>>>
>>> AB2TC - Knut
>>>
>>>
>>> Al Lorona wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU
>>>> you
>>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run
>>>> queue
>>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
>>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if
>>>> you
>>>> don't have to wait at all.
>>>>
>>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several
>>>> other
>>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better
>>>> performance.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so
>>>>> anyone
>>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had
>>>>> better
>>>>> think about a new computer first.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> View this message in context:
>>> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html
>>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>> ---
>> ---
>> ---
>> ---
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date:
>> 02/19/10
>> 02:34:00
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Brett Howard

Re: W9OY on P3

I think there is a lot more important things in there other than 1 or 2
CPU's. Architecture means quite a bit more. How much L1/L2 cache, and
caching algorithms. memory bandwidth, video memory bandwidth, which
ties in with FSB speeds. Pipelining structures and how well each
application performs can vary depending on if its optimized for each
pipelining structure. Not to mention that the OS can have more than its
fair share of play on how efficiently your applications even make it to
the CPU.

I see Disk as less of an operation speed bottle neck with the price of
RAM today but as bad as Windows can get when its been on a computer for
a long time this can play a role. Usually it has more to do with start
up and shut down times.

When you're in Windows how bloated your registry has become and how many
TSR's you've loaded over the years can play to a large bit of difference
as well. Thats why often just formatting a computer and reinstalling
the same version of windows for people usually makes them feel like they
just got a brand new computer.

I'll be interested to see if I can get LP-Pan working on a box with a
Celeron processor in it... Its a 3.33Ghz box w/ 2GB of RAM but the lack
luster L2 cache that they put on the Celeron's can be a killer... I may
have to see what that thing can take as far as real processors too... ;)

~Brett

On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:23 -1000, David Herring, K6DCH wrote:

> One point I forgot to make in my last post is that each point I
> listed, both singularly and in combination with the others, directly
> impacts CPU utilization.
>
> 73
> David K6DCH
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:04 PM, "David Herring, K6DCH" <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I have a degree in computer science and 25 years in the industry, and
> > *I* wish someone could explain the disparity in performance among PC
> > makes and models. Hi Hi
> >
> > The fact is there are a very large number of factors that come into
> > play. I can list some here...
> >
> > CPU -- 1 or 2?
> >
> > Video card -- on board processing? The same video board can display
> > vastly different performance depending on OS and driver. There is
> > also differences between models within the same line.
> >
> > Memory -- not just how much you have, but how much is actually
> > available for allocation to the apps.
> >
> > Disk -- when you get to a point where the OS has to page memory out to
> > to disk, the speed of the disk will make a huge difference in
> > performance. Granted you are already compromised in performance at
> > this point, but a faster disk will minimize the pain. Sometimes by an
> > order of magnitude.
> >
> > Drivers -- version and vendor make a big difference here. Some drivers
> > perform well. Others are junk. Hard to know which is which.
> >
> > Junk Software -- many vendors load up the PC with pure garbage that
> > suck up resources and provide little benefit. Sadly you don't always
> > know that this stuff is running or what it's doing.
> >
> > Background processes -- antivirus, malware scanners, file indexing,
> > etc. could impact performance in non-intuitive ways.
> >
> > I doubt I've even scratched the surface here, but I think we begin to
> > see that the combinations of factors at play here makes for quite a
> > challenge in explaining the disparity among machines.
> >
> > Sometimes an older PC will run things faster because it has less
> > unneeded garbage on it and better drivers. It could also have less
> > bloat (XP is less bloated than Vista, for example).
> >
> > When I get a PC, the first thing I do is wipe the hard drive and load
> > my own clean OS. It's a pain but it mitigates many of the problems
> > here and I have always had better performance afterward.
> >
> > Now I do not just reload the OS from the vendor supplied disks -- that
> > just loads the same junk back on. I reload using a fresh copy
> > purchased "off the shelf."
> >
> > Hope that sheds at least a little light on the issue.
> >
> > 73
> > David. K6DCH.
> >
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:14 PM, "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on
> >> various
> >> computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB
> >> ram. I'm
> >> running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge
> >> etc.....My CPU
> >> usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to
> >> 4%.
> >> Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time.
> >> My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR at
> >> all.
> >> Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR
> >> lightning
> >> fast...No one can seem to explain the difference.
> >> Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you are
> >> running
> >> more programs with less CPU and RAM?
> >> Steve
> >> N4LQ
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>
> >> To: <[hidden email]>
> >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy way of
> >>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it doesn't
> >>> (or
> >>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the
> >>> performance of
> >>> a
> >>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it.
> >>> With
> >>> that
> >>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load
> >>> on a
> >>> 3GHz
> >>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at 2.9GHz
> >>> and
> >>> 2Gb
> >>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all
> >>> of the
> >>> following running:
> >>>
> >>> LP-Bridge
> >>> HRD
> >>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
> >>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
> >>> Iexplore composing this message
> >>> Thunderbird mail client
> >>> DX Atlas
> >>>
> >>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I
> >>> think
> >>> most
> >>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with the
> >>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a
> >>> joy. I
> >>> am
> >>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU
> >>> utilization
> >>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent
> >>> prioritization
> >>> of
> >>> tasks.
> >>>
> >>> AB2TC - Knut
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Al Lorona wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
> >>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only CPU
> >>>> you
> >>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run
> >>>> queue
> >>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by the
> >>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if
> >>>> you
> >>>> don't have to wait at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several
> >>>> other
> >>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better
> >>>> performance.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
> >>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so
> >>>>> anyone
> >>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had
> >>>>> better
> >>>>> think about a new computer first.
> >>>> <snip>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> View this message in context:
> >>> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html
> >>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>> ______________________________________________________________
> >>> Elecraft mailing list
> >>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>>
> >>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> >>
> >>
> >> ---
> >> ---
> >> ---
> >> ---
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> No virus found in this incoming message.
> >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date:
> >> 02/19/10
> >> 02:34:00
> >>
> >> ______________________________________________________________
> >> Elecraft mailing list
> >> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> >> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> >> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >>
> >> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> >> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> > ______________________________________________________________
> > Elecraft mailing list
> > Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> > Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> > Post: mailto:[hidden email]
> >
> > This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> > Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Brett Howard

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Barry N1EU

So I have a question about the P3... Whats the screen look like when
you're in a white tent on a sunny day?

~Brett

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

Greg - AB7R

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Bob Naumann W5OV

I agree Bob. The Flex 5K is a nice radio. I "had" one myself for a
brief time. It really comes down to user preference as with all things.

Of course you cannot beat the K3's receiver performance so that you
cannot dispute. But if someone is so hung up on computers then it is
not a bad option for them. The main things I did not like about them
were....
1. I just don't want to rely on a computer being so vulnerable to
problems. If you have a computer problem then you have a radio problem
too. With any other radio a computer problem does not induce problems
with the radio.

2. Just did not like the UI having to bounce back and forth in a
contest situation between the logging program and the radio window. Too
cumbersome.

3. While the CW performance was improved it was still nothing close to
the K3.

4. Too many child programs you had to run in addition to PWRSDR for it
to do certain things. And while they did work, it was just one more
ingredient in the pie where something could go wrong.

Chow...

73
Greg
AB7R

On 2/19/2010 4:07 AM, Bob Naumann wrote:

> Let's be reasonable though - the Flex is not a piece of junk just because
> it's in second place on the Sherwood list.
>
> There's a whole lot of good radios behind the two of them further down the
> list.
>
> I think this W9OY, because of his obvious pro-Flex bias, should be given the
> same respect as W2OY was in the "olde days". (He was the "CQ CQ, no kids, no
> lids, no space cadets" guy).
>
> W5OV
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Hector Padron
> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 6:01 AM
> To: juergen
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>
> W9OY says:
> "Elecraft had their little answer to the pan adapter, what a joke. It was a
> little screen maybe 9" and made the radio look like a toy. The quality of
> the display was horrible"
>
> What can you expect from a Flex radio user,they all will attack our
> K3's,they all will critize our radios,they feel those Flex radios are the
> best in the world and nothing will be better for them,its a human nature to
> defend what we have but I would ask them, why Sherwood lab has the K3 on top
> of the list and then the "Flex 5000 takes second place? I will ask them to
> answer that simple question.
>
> AD4C
>
> "For a refined ham it is compulsory to own a k3"
>
> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, juergen<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
> From: juergen<[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
> To: [hidden email]
> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 10:04 AM
>
>
>
> Hi Julian
>
>
> Looks like a jealous Flexradio fan.
>
> So many Flexradio users have PC problems and hangups. I would not go near
> this concept. At least if you plug the P3 in it wont hangup. You certainly
> wont have to spend months seeking out a good motherboard that wont cause
> hangups or stutter.
>
> I dont see Agilent bringing out test instruments with a PC for the main
> interface. They dont do this for for very good and valid reasons. Ham
> radios are exactly the same in nature, they need a front panel with knobs
> and buttons.
>
> I dont mind using my Perseus for casual monitoring and testing tasks,
> however when tuning the bands for a long period of time I just shut the
> thing off and use a real VFO knob. Its the most efficient device ever
> invented for tuning, its the equivalent of the wheel for ham radio! We all
> know there's little point in reinventing the wheel!
>
> Hail the VFO Knob!
>
> John
>
>
> --- On Fri, 2/19/10, Julian, G4ILO<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>> From: Julian, G4ILO<[hidden email]>
>> Subject: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>> To: [hidden email]
>> Date: Friday, February 19, 2010, 1:11 AM
>>
>> W9OY comments on the P3 panadapter in his blog:
>>
>>
> http://w9oy-sdr.blogspot.com/2010/02/orlando-hamcation-2010-plus-f3k-post.ht
> ml
>
>> . [Apoplexy alert: he doesn't say anything nice.]
>>
>> -----
>> Julian, G4ILO. K2 #392 K3 #222.
>> * G4ILO's Shack - http://www.g4ilo.com
>> * KComm - http://www.g4ilo.com/kcomm.html
>> * KTune - http://www.g4ilo.com/ktune.html
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>>
> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4596769.html
>
>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>
>>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.435 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date: 02/19/10 07:34:00
>
>

David Herring-2

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Brett Howard

Yes...caching both type and quantity...front side bus
speeds...pipelining...registry bloat...

I agree with Brett that all these impact performance and can account
for disparity in performance numbers between machines.

But you can almost never get a true apples to apples comparison
between PCs because even if you are running identical hardware and
identical software, or what you would think is identical, there are so
many other variables that can directly and sometimes dramatically
impact performance it's hard to quantify them all.

As for me, if it works I leave it alone. High CPU utilization isn't
necessarily indicative of a problem.

73
David K6DCH

Sent from my iPhone

On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:41 PM, Brett Howard <[hidden email]>
wrote:

> I think there is a lot more important things in there other than 1
> or 2
> CPU's. Architecture means quite a bit more. How much L1/L2 cache,
> and
> caching algorithms. memory bandwidth, video memory bandwidth, which
> ties in with FSB speeds. Pipelining structures and how well each
> application performs can vary depending on if its optimized for each
> pipelining structure. Not to mention that the OS can have more than
> its
> fair share of play on how efficiently your applications even make it
> to
> the CPU.
>
> I see Disk as less of an operation speed bottle neck with the price of
> RAM today but as bad as Windows can get when its been on a computer
> for
> a long time this can play a role. Usually it has more to do with
> start
> up and shut down times.
>
> When you're in Windows how bloated your registry has become and how
> many
> TSR's you've loaded over the years can play to a large bit of
> difference
> as well. Thats why often just formatting a computer and reinstalling
> the same version of windows for people usually makes them feel like
> they
> just got a brand new computer.
>
> I'll be interested to see if I can get LP-Pan working on a box with a
> Celeron processor in it... Its a 3.33Ghz box w/ 2GB of RAM but the
> lack
> luster L2 cache that they put on the Celeron's can be a killer... I
> may
> have to see what that thing can take as far as real processors
> too... ;)
>
> ~Brett
>
>
> On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 13:23 -1000, David Herring, K6DCH wrote:
>> One point I forgot to make in my last post is that each point I
>> listed, both singularly and in combination with the others, directly
>> impacts CPU utilization.
>>
>> 73
>> David K6DCH
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2010, at 1:04 PM, "David Herring, K6DCH" <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I have a degree in computer science and 25 years in the industry,
>>> and
>>> *I* wish someone could explain the disparity in performance among PC
>>> makes and models. Hi Hi
>>>
>>> The fact is there are a very large number of factors that come into
>>> play. I can list some here...
>>>
>>> CPU -- 1 or 2?
>>>
>>> Video card -- on board processing? The same video board can display
>>> vastly different performance depending on OS and driver. There is
>>> also differences between models within the same line.
>>>
>>> Memory -- not just how much you have, but how much is actually
>>> available for allocation to the apps.
>>>
>>> Disk -- when you get to a point where the OS has to page memory
>>> out to
>>> to disk, the speed of the disk will make a huge difference in
>>> performance. Granted you are already compromised in performance at
>>> this point, but a faster disk will minimize the pain. Sometimes by
>>> an
>>> order of magnitude.
>>>
>>> Drivers -- version and vendor make a big difference here. Some
>>> drivers
>>> perform well. Others are junk. Hard to know which is which.
>>>
>>> Junk Software -- many vendors load up the PC with pure garbage that
>>> suck up resources and provide little benefit. Sadly you don't always
>>> know that this stuff is running or what it's doing.
>>>
>>> Background processes -- antivirus, malware scanners, file indexing,
>>> etc. could impact performance in non-intuitive ways.
>>>
>>> I doubt I've even scratched the surface here, but I think we begin
>>> to
>>> see that the combinations of factors at play here makes for quite a
>>> challenge in explaining the disparity among machines.
>>>
>>> Sometimes an older PC will run things faster because it has less
>>> unneeded garbage on it and better drivers. It could also have less
>>> bloat (XP is less bloated than Vista, for example).
>>>
>>> When I get a PC, the first thing I do is wipe the hard drive and
>>> load
>>> my own clean OS. It's a pain but it mitigates many of the problems
>>> here and I have always had better performance afterward.
>>>
>>> Now I do not just reload the OS from the vendor supplied disks --
>>> that
>>> just loads the same junk back on. I reload using a fresh copy
>>> purchased "off the shelf."
>>>
>>> Hope that sheds at least a little light on the issue.
>>>
>>> 73
>>> David. K6DCH.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2010, at 12:14 PM, "Steve Ellington" <[hidden email]
>>> >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wish SOMEONE could explain the disparities between CPU usage on
>>>> various
>>>> computers while running PowerSDR. I'm using a Dell 3.4Ghz CPU, 4GB
>>>> ram. I'm
>>>> running the same EMU-0202 at 96Ks/s. Windows XP, LP-Bridge
>>>> etc.....My CPU
>>>> usage hovers around 45%. I can stop PowerSDR and CPU usage drops to
>>>> 4%.
>>>> Obviously PowerSDR is eating up a lot of CPU time.
>>>> My older Compaq with a 1.8Ghz processor really could not run PSDR
>>>> at
>>>> all.
>>>> Then we hear stories about old clunky computers running PDSR
>>>> lightning
>>>> fast...No one can seem to explain the difference.
>>>> Mine runs fine but why would your CPU be less than mine when you
>>>> are
>>>> running
>>>> more programs with less CPU and RAM?
>>>> Steve
>>>> N4LQ
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "ab2tc" <[hidden email]>
>>>> To: <[hidden email]>
>>>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 4:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Elecraft] W9OY on P3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I would have agreed if Windows had offered developers an easy
>>>>> way of
>>>>> prioritizing threads and processes. But as far as I know it
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> (or
>>>>> developers don't know how to use it). In my experience the
>>>>> performance of
>>>>> a
>>>>> PC with 90% CPU load is miserable for all processes running on it.
>>>>> With
>>>>> that
>>>>> said, I don't see why PowerSDR should incur that kind of CPU load
>>>>> on a
>>>>> 3GHz
>>>>> machine. I am running XP home edition on a dual core Dell at
>>>>> 2.9GHz
>>>>> and
>>>>> 2Gb
>>>>> of RAM. My CPU utilization is hovering between 15 and 30% with all
>>>>> of the
>>>>> following running:
>>>>>
>>>>> LP-Bridge
>>>>> HRD
>>>>> PowerSDR with EMU-0202 sound card at 192ks/s
>>>>> VE7CC cluster client (highly recommended)
>>>>> Iexplore composing this message
>>>>> Thunderbird mail client
>>>>> DX Atlas
>>>>>
>>>>> I can add more applications and the CPU barely nudges upwards. I
>>>>> think
>>>>> most
>>>>> people would agree that a car that has to be driven always with
>>>>> the
>>>>> accelerator nearly to the metal is underpowered and not much of a
>>>>> joy. I
>>>>> am
>>>>> a firmware developer and we always worry whenever the CPU
>>>>> utilization
>>>>> exceeds 50% even though we use OS's that allow intelligent
>>>>> prioritization
>>>>> of
>>>>> tasks.
>>>>>
>>>>> AB2TC - Knut
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Lorona wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just a minor point: There might be a misconception that high CPU
>>>>>> utilization means your computer is inadequate for the task.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, you want the CPU to work hard for you. It isn't only
>>>>>> CPU
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> should worry about, it's what is called the 'run queue'. The run
>>>>>> queue
>>>>>> determines how long your job has to wait until it's serviced by
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> computer. It's okay to have 100% CPU (and in fact you want it) if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> don't have to wait at all.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A person assessing the performance of a computer looks at several
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> things besides CPU when determining what to tune for better
>>>>>> performance.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don Wilhelm-4 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am using a 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 with 1 GB of RAM, running
>>>>>>> WinXP Pro and the CPU utilization ranges from 50% to 90%, so
>>>>>>> anyone
>>>>>>> thinking of choosing this alternative with a lesser computer had
>>>>>>> better
>>>>>>> think about a new computer first.
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>> http://n2.nabble.com/W9OY-on-P3-tp4596769p4600120.html
>>>>> Sent from the Elecraft mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>>
>>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/
>>>>> donate.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> ---
>>>> ---
>>>> ---
>>>> ---
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>> Version: 9.0.733 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2697 - Release Date:
>>>> 02/19/10
>>>> 02:34:00
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>>
>>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>>> ______________________________________________________________
>>> Elecraft mailing list
>>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>>
>>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>> ______________________________________________________________
>> Elecraft mailing list
>> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
>> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
>> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>>
>> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
>> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[hidden email]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

lstavenhagen

Re: W9OY on P3

In reply to this post by Brett Howard

For what its worth, "TSR's" (so called Terminate and Stay Resident apps) went away with Windows NT and all subsequent NT-based versions of Windows. There pretty much isn't an analogue in current versions except perhaps services which have a slightly similar intent.

The registry is a terrible design, mostly because there's no simple way to access it and clean it up.

.NET and DirectX are deals with the devil a little bit too as MS rewrites and obsoletes both of these at a frightening rate. They break backwards compatibility on both pretty much at will and in subtle, hard-to-find ways. This forces you into upgrading to be able to keep your stuff working, a very expensive proposition for a .NET/DirectX development shop.

I've found the best fix for Windows was to just replace it with something else. MacOS X (and of course an Intel Mac) is what I use and of course the Linux distributions are coming along pretty good. Most of those problems go away in one shot with these hi hi.

Only drag is I couldn't use a Flex rig (unless I got the 5000c). Darn. Good thing I have my K2!

LS
W5QD, K2 #6882

Eric Swartz - WA6HHQ

Re: W9OY on P3 [END of Thread]

Administrator

Folks - We're drifting well off topic and this thread has more than
passed posting quantity limit ;-)

Let's end it for now.

73, Eric WA6HHQ
Elecraft List Moderator
----

______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[hidden email]

This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html

123