<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
well *certain* people (you *know* who you are :-) :-) were *SUPPOSED* to be<br>alpha-testing a version that supports that. That was now at least a couple of<br>MONTHS ago! <br><br>I dont suppose, Kyle, that *you* would be interested in doing that for me.. like NOW..<br>would you?? :-)<br><br>Thanks<br><br>JIM<br><br><br><div>> From: yokshs@sbcglobal.net<br>> To: app_rpt-users@ohnosec.org<br>> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 14:24:30 -0500<br>> Subject: [App_rpt-users] chan_simpleusb<br>> <br>> Hello all,<br>> <br>> I thought I'd give chan_simpleusb a try again today. I thought I remembered <br>> reading the parallel port support had been added to chan_simpleusb?<br>> <br>> The parallel support didn't work, so I went digging through the archives, <br>> and found that it was "on the list" of planned improvments.<br>> <br>> I guess my question is, is it any easier on my P3/866 MHz Asterisk box to <br>> run one RF node on the standard chan_usbradio and one on chan_simpleusb? I <br>> currently have one modified CM108 fob, and one unmodified (using parallel <br>> port for ptt/cos).<br>> <br>> I've tried it both ways, while monitoring top, and it's not clear to me <br>> whether the PC is happier one way or the other. The audio "glitches" seem to <br>> have disappeared from the simple_usb node.<br>> <br>> Thanks for any assistance.<br>> <br>> 73.<br>> <br>> Kyle<br>> K0KN<br>> <br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> App_rpt-users mailing list<br>> App_rpt-users@ohnosec.org<br>> http://ohnosec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/app_rpt-users<br></div> </div></body>
</html>