RealVNC Changes Terms, without Notice.

Just over three years ago, I figured out how to Remotely operate FT8 using a product called RealVNC. 

RealVNC had a Home plan that allowed up to 3 users and up to 5 devices for non-commercial use. Perfect for remotely controlled computers in a ham radio shack.

Today, without any notice, RealVNC disabled my Home plan, and I had to choose between paying each month for a plan, or adopting their Lite plan, which allows 1 user and up to 3 devices for non-commercial use.

That's fine. They allow me to use their secure remote access software without fees. I can understand they might want to change the terms.

The Lite plan fits my usage. I've only ever had two devices active anyway, and it's just me as the user. 

But, without notice - that is just damned inconvenient. Since I switched plans, I need to visit each device and re-configure them to be part of the new plan. Which means I can't remote into those computers until that is completed. 

And, of course, since I'm remote, I'm not there.

Quite inconvenient.

How 1984 wasn't like "1984."

In 1984, I was working at Hayes Microcomputer Products. They were the premiere modem manufacturer for small computers, back in the days when modems over telephone lines were a primary means of computer to computer and user to computer communications. 

In my job, I created communications software to talk to the modems. The software dialed the modem, established connection, provided terminal emulation (my specialty), allowed for the capture of the data stream to files, printing, file transfer with the remote computer (using protocols like XMODEM and YMODEM), and other features. 

These were the early days of personal computing. IBM introduced the PC in 1981, and it had rapidly evolved into a defacto standard computer, shoving out various CP/M designs from the previous decade. Personal computers were so new, people were trying to figure out what to do with them. Word processing, spreadsheets and other office applications had just been introduced. 

Hayes was trying to stay at the forefront. We had a laboratory filled with pretty much one of every personal computer, and when new ones came out, we would buy one. In late 1983, we got an Apple Lisa. It was a very different kind of computing experience. It was a curiosity to us, and as there was no programming environment available, we didn't see how we could build software to talk to a modem. Plus, at the price point, there were few buyers.

The Macintosh

Though the Macintosh was introduced in January of 1984, I didn't get hands on one until the late spring of 1984. Yes, we brought one into the lab, and it immediately garnered a lot of attention. 

While there were similarities to the Apple Lisa, the small screen with square pixels just seemed sharper and more distinct. The whole interface was friendly and approachable. We messed with MacWrite, MacPaint, and MacDraw. We printed on an ImageWriter, making appreciably decent images unlike anything we could do on another type of computer. There were several of us hooked and enthusiastic.

It's hard to describe those days. At this point, everyone has had decades to become familiar with computers that use a graphical user interface and a mouse or other pointing device to interact. Back then, it was a revelation. It was much more approachable than the command-line interfaces of the day. 

As I described it to someone in the early 90s -- other computer interfaces required one to reach toward the computer. You had to learn the special language and commands of that computer. The Macintosh was the first computer that reached back toward you -- the user.

The Machine

The Macintosh was based on a 16-bit Motorola MC68000 processor, running at 8 MHz. This was more than competitive with the Intel-based IBM clones circulating at the time. This processor was a great choices by Apple. It had many registers and powerful instructions for manipulating the bit-mapped screen.

Biggest constraint was memory. The 128 KB in the Macintosh was shared with 24 KB used for the screen, several more KB for operating system usage, leaving about 90 KB to run your program. Most of the critical operating system routines were in the Macintosh ROMs, which saved space. Building a program of any sophistication was difficult -- It was very tight to work with.

The single 400 KB floppy disk drive was also a limitation. Trying to save a file to another diskette could produce an endless amount of swapping. It was the lack of addition storage that kept me from buying a Mac until the Mac SE/20 was introduced in 1987. 

Next Steps

By summer, Hayes hired some consultants to look into the feasibility of developing communications software for the Macintosh. In just a few weeks, they had some rudimentary software going and concluded that it was quite feasible. 

We were soon green lighted to create a product for the Macintosh.

Forty Years of Personal Computing - The Big Toss Out

Some time in 1985, I had one of those moments I regretted. 

I'd gotten my MC6809 system running in late 1983, running the Flex09 operating system on 8" floppy disks. I had a full set of documentation for several pieces of hardware and software. My new job kept me busy, so I didn't have much time to work with my system at home.

August of 1984, I began programming the Macintosh at work. We published our first product in March of 1985. The Macintosh was a revelation -- it completely changed the metaphor for computing. I saw early on that it was the future. But, I couldn't afford one right away. I wouldn't buy my first Mac until the summer of 1987 -- a Macintosh SE. I've only purchased Macintosh computers since that time. 

In the late spring of 1985, I prepared to move to a new apartment. I had bulky boxes of documentation in my closet. I figured that I'd never do anything more with that MC6809 system -- the Macintosh was the future. 

I threw nearly all of the documentation away. 

Two months later, in the new apartment, I regretted my decision. There were things I could do with my MC6809 computer. I had to replace the missing documentation. 

To this day, I'm not sure I found replacements for everything I had.

Remote Operation - Level 0 (RealVNC)

Sometimes experiment pays off. You never know until you try.

I was reading an article about remotely controlling computers over the internet. It occurred to me that if I could do this, it would be easy to operate FT8 from my Gwinnett QTH when I was at the Fulton QTH. Although I have rigs in both locations, Gwinnett is where I have the K3, and can operate on 6m. 

I started to research solutions. I found a product called RealVNC that can be licensed free for non-commercial use on up to five computers. Comes with a separate server and viewer product, and it works on Macs as well as Windows, Linux, even the Rasberry Pi. 

You have to create an account on their web site, but the installation was easy. I have a MacBook Pro hooked to the K3 at the Gwinnett QTH. I installed the server there. Then I installed the viewer software on a couple of Macs, and one Windows computer. 

Making the connection from Viewer to Server requires 2-factor authentication, so it is pretty secure. 

This software worked great. I was easily able to connect to the MacBook Pro and use WSJT-X. The K3 has to remain turned on, and I have no way to remotely change antennas, so I left it switched to the 3-element 6m beam. I also have no way to rotate the antenna remotely (it uses Armstrong rotation...), so I left the beam pointing SouthEast. I was hoping to pick up some propagation to the Caribbean or perhaps Central or South America. 

The first week of this experiment bore fruit the next day. I was in Fulton county, but checking I lucked into an opening to South America, where I worked two stations in Chile and two in Uruguay. Two new countries and four new grids! The next day, there was a powerful, but brief opening to the Cayman Islands, and Belize.

While one cannot predict 6m propagation, remote operating gives me a tool so I don't miss out on openings while I'm away from the Gwinnett QTH. 

This is only Level 0 of Remote Operating. I can only do FT8, and I can't change bands. That's next, I'm working on an automatic antenna switch driver to choose an antenna by the band selection of the K3. 

Radio 2017 - Progress March

I don't want to admit it, but no, not a lot of progress on this. No long vacation excuses this time, just busy with life. What can I say?

I did get to review the WWDC videos regarding storyboards. I (re-)discovered a few interesting things:

• Set the main storyboard in the info.plist - I had done this.
• You can build up window content by using content segues to multiple view controllers. I didn't have a need for this yet, but I'm sure it's coming.
• Control-Drag directly from a menu or button to a window content view. This will produce a segue to the view controller. Easy and useful. The host view controller receives a method call prepareForSegue:sender: before the window appears for the segue. I'm not using this because there doesn't seem to be a way to associate the document window for this action when it appears on the application menu. 

So, my main question became -- how does all the other document stuff work? When you select File / Save, how does that get to the NSPersistentDocument class? Turns out, it uses a basic target/action to the First Responder. 

I just had to figure out is how to add my action method for my modes window to the First Responder. That turns out to be easy. Select the First Responder icon of the main menu. Then, use the Attributes inspector, and you'll see a list of User-Defined actions. The weird thing is, though, once you've defined them, they disappear from this list.

No matter, just add an action, then edit it to be the method name you want. Then wire it up to the menu with control-drag as before. Implement the method anywhere in the responder chain. I implemented this in my document class. And my mode window comes up correctly, and I have a unique instance of it for each document. Cool.

Next is the hard part -- trying to figure out how to associate the managed object context of the document with the modes view controller. This is were it gets weird. The window controller has a property document which points to the document for that window. How you get to that value from the view controller is something I have not figured out yet. 

Radio 2017 - Progress February

Well, I can't say that I've made much of any progress since the last posting. I took a 10-day trip to Israel to visit Bethlehem, Masada, Galilee, Jericho, Jerusalem -- all the holy sites. The trip was very intensive, and after I returned home it took me about a week to recover and then catch up on all my missed work.

I did spend a little time going over my test programs trying to figure out the right way to write Cocoa code for MacOS X document-based apps with Storyboards. What I'm doing seems too complicated.

So, I've decided I need to go back and find the WWDC videos regarding using storyboards with MacOS X, and it also might be useful to view the the ones for iOS docment-based apps as well, to see if that gives me any insight.

With any luck, I'll make much more progress in March.

Radio 2017 - Progress January

Quick progress report on the Radio 2017 project. I've managed to get started on the casual logging program. I've created the basic framework and a local Git repository. An early cut of the Core Data model is in place. You can't do much more than run the program and create, save and close documents so far.

I have discovered that Storyboards on MacOS don't quite seem ready for prime time. First, there's a bug that windows don't cascade when creating a new document. Second, the split of the original NSDocument class into NSViewController and NSPersistentDocument subclasses creates something of a conundrum. The NSPersistentDocument owns the Managed Object Context, but the NSViewController subclass is the place that owns all of the UI actions.

To make things worse, the main menus actions only appear to be able to effectively target the application delegate. If you want to target something in the NSViewController or NSDocument, you have to write a handler in the application delegate to find the current document view controller and call the right method.

I've figured out the proper way to do the menu actions, but I'm still puzzling out how to handle the managed object context from the view controller actions.

None of this is rocket science, but it's certainly slowed things down, as I have had to create separate projects in order to figure out the most appropriate way to do things.

I'm still learning Swift. The nuances of optionals and when to use the various operators is something that will come with practice. The compiler is keeping me on the straight and narrow.

The Radio 2017 Project

My long-time friend Chris, K4JCW, invented the term GUP. It's an acronym for Great, Unfinished Project. Naturally, any unfinished project can always be great. Because, well, it is unfinished. If it lacks greatness at the moment, there's always a chance it could be added. The greatness of any project reaches maximum before it starts.

A couple of months ago, I got to thinking about some of my unfinished software projects. I've already talked about my casual logging program. While I've made a few small enhancements over the years, it's basically the same program I wrote in 2006. There are others I've been meaning to write for the Mac for several years.

This summer, after the Apple World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC), I studied the updated Swift 3 language. It seemed to me that Swift was probably mature enough to start using. I also caught up on several videos, including those on how to use storyboards in MacOS applications, something that was certainly not possible ten years ago.

I decided it is time to develop some new Mac software. I've labeled this the Radio 2017 project, as I hope to be done within the year 2017. I have identified the need for the following applications:

• Casual Logging Program - very basic logging program with import / export to ADIF, control of the Elecraft K2/K3, support for RTTY and PSK operating, as well as CW keying, automation via AppleEvents / Automator

• Contest Logging Program - logging program with contests, supporting main ARRL, CQ and NA contests. Import / export to Cabrillo, ADIF. Support for CW keying and RTTY and PSK operating.

• SDR Software to use with SoftRock Lite II - I purchased the SoftRock Lite II to use with the K3 IF frequency. This would serve as a pan adapter / spectrum analyzer.

• Remote Control Server  and Client - to allow me to operate my Gwinnett station from anywhere.

• QSL Tracking Software - track paper QSLs against awards.

All of these would be useful to me. There are probably a couple of utility applications to consider as well.

In writing this software, I've decided to stick to a few goals:

• Swift 3 - the applications should be written almost entirely in Swift 3. (There are a few APIs -- notably Core Audio -- that are more appropriately accessed with Objective C/C++. I'll likely use Swift-callable wrapper classes for those)

• Storyboards - the UI should be constructed using storyboards.

• UI Guidelines - applications should follow the latest Mac UI guidelines.

• Store-ready - should these applications turn out well, my stretch goal is to publish them on the Macintosh App store.

The hardest part of this sort of project is maintaining focus and motivation. I hope to help that by publishing my progress here each month. Wish me luck!

Another Kind of Monopoly

Back in the 1990s and early 2000s, Microsoft ruled personal computing with market share. At their peak around 2004, more than 90% of personal computing devices ran some variant of Windows. Even before this, they wielded enormous influence. It took a long time to topple Microsoft from the top of the stack. All during this time I was a staunch Macintosh supporter. I felt that this sort of monopolistic market was unnatural -- that consumers would be better supported in a market with three or four major competitors, rather than just one.

I happened to catch this short blog article referenced from the Stocks app on my iPhone under AAPL. It states that Apple has captured 88.7% of the profits from the Forth Quarter 2014 Smartphone sales. Apple has no where near 80+% of the Smartphone market share --  nearly 20% in Q4 2014, but more typically around 15%.

Seems this is another kind of monopoly -- not of share, but of profits. Google Android captured the remaining  11.3% of the profits, and other vendors lost money.

I'm not sure how I feel about this. It doesn't have the permanence that Microsoft seemed to have in the late 90s, since profits can change from quarter to quarter. But, unlike Microsoft, Apple seems to be in a mode where it is continuously re-inventing itself. And with the Smartphone cash cow, it has plenty of resources to do so.

And yet, Microsoft's hegemony wasn't permanent either -- the market eventually pivoted out from under them. I wonder where the market will pivot next.

Honey, I Bricked My K3

K3/100 in the operating position

A couple of weekends ago, I noticed that Elecraft had updated the release firmware for the K3 back in February. I'm not much for trying beta firmware, but I try to keep up to date. 

So, I fired up the old Elecraft K3 Utility and set it to go. I did not realize at that moment that I was to undergo a multi-day ordeal. 

MCU load went OK, but then it decided to upload the FPF. It kept getting stuck on the FPF. I figured it was just a glitch, so I tried it a half-dozen times. Each time, it would fail on the FPF load.

Of course, this left the K3 unusable. Without the front panel firmware, there's no front panel. My K3 was just about as useful as a brick.

Frantic e-mail to the elecraft email list brought several helpful responses, the most helpful was from Elecraft support.

Unfortunately, it would be a couple of days before I could try their suggestions, as I had to leave my Floyd County QTH for Gwinnett County. 

Three days later, I was able to put my full efforts into the solution. Apparently, I had tried to load the firmware with an old version of the K3 Utility. While Elecraft says this won't work, what they don't tell you is that it breaks your K3 in a weird way. 

That was easy enough to figure out. However, my problem was that even after I updated the utility, it wouldn't load the firmware, either.

At some point, someone suggested I try to load the old firmware. Well, doing that is not straightforward. You see, you have to go to your firmware download directory and remove all the files that weren't in the previous firmware. That's not obvious.  Eventually, I figured out that the FPF firmware hadn't changed -- only the MCU and DSP firmware were updated. Removing those files, I attempted a full download.

Voila! It worked. My K3 is un-bricked. I was now back to firmware 4.67. Now to try the update.

Instead of selecting the option to download all firmware, I chose the option of only downloading the updated firmware. That way, it wouldn't have to try to re-load the existing FPF, saving a bit of time.

Of course, it upgraded without a hitch. Goes to show you need to use the right tool. And follow directions -- the Elecraft instructions stated you need to use the latest utility. I should have checked instead of just assuming.

My On-Again, Off-Again Relationship with Cocoa

My personal logging program.

It's been a long time ago, but I did Mac development when it was new. I started in August 1984, which was pretty much on the ground floor. My employer switched me back and forth between Mac and DOS, and later Windows development. I really loved doing Mac development in those days. But, in 1994, they abruptly ended all Mac work and later that year filed Chapter 11. I left the company about six months later.

I found another job that was part-Mac, part-Windows. That lasted until they laid me off in 2002, just after WWDC. Those were pretty dark times to be a Mac developer. The Windows hegemony was nearly complete -- with over 90% of personal computers running Microsoft's operating system.

Apple tried very hard to get developers ramped up on Mac OS X. Although you could certainly port over a classic MacOS application using Carbon, the writing was on the wall. Cocoa was the future. At WWDC 2001, Apple seeded every developer with the book Learning Cocoa with Objective-C by Davidson. And in 2002, again with Building Cocoa Applications by Garfinkel and Mahoney. I'm sure these tomes jumpstarted many developers.

I tried. I worked nearly all the problems in both books. In those days, there was no Xcode, just Project Builder and Interface Builder. And they were pretty klunky compared to Metrowerks CodeWarrior. But I only had one machine that could run Mac OS X in those days. I was still fooling around with CodeWarrior and PowerPlant. At least, until I got laid off.

The best I could do at the time was a job that was solely Windows. I figured I'd take it as a bridge job, and here I am still at it ten years later. But, that's another story.

I still love the Mac. My whole family uses Macs. I use mine each day. 

Back in the fall of 2003, I started uploading all my logbooks to Logbook of the World (LotW). All my electronic contest logs were pretty easy, even one Field Day log that had a corrupt binary file was eventually rescued and uploaded. 

The hardest part was entering all the hand-written logs. Some time in 2005, I finished this job. While my contest contacts were in electronic form, I was still hand-writing my casual contacts. By spring of 2006, it was time to give the hand-written logbooks the heave-ho. 

I decided I wanted a Mac program. So, I set about to write one. Back to those Cocoa books again. I wrote a very simple program designed to replace the paper log and not much else. You can see a screen image of it above.

With that immediate problem solved, it seems like I forgot what I learned. A couple of years later, when the iPhone SDK came out, one of the best ways to learn Cocoa was the Aaron Hillegass book, Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X. I managed to get one the earliest copies of the third edition, and was again working my way through a Cocoa book.

But, life intervened, and I never did quite finish all the problems. I've since gotten a couple of other books on iOS programming (and I still need to work my way through those, too). What amazes me is how quickly these books go out of date. They try to hand-hold you through every step in using XCode -- except that XCode has likely changed since the book was printed.

All this came to a head recently a work when another team asked me to put together a presentation on how to get started with iOS programming. This team had an iOS application that was developed by an outside consultant, and they needed to take over development.

Well, despite the absence of recent experience, I manage to put together a pretty good introduction. It was heavy on the things I understood well, such as Objective-C, Interface Builder and many of the design patterns used in Cocoa. If anything was lacking, it was details on the classes in the Cocoa Touch framework. But I felt like I gave them the tools to figure it out.

I've used a number of different object-oriented frameworks over the years, MacApp 2 and 3, TCL, PowerPlant, and even a smattering of MFC before tackling Cocoa. Like any framework, understanding really comes from experience -- the more you use the framework, the better your understanding will be.

Now, where is that book...?

The Reason I Hate Windows

It was going to be a typical casual contest weekend. I had the new 160/80m Inverted L ready to go. I had hoped to work a few more countries on 80m for DXCC, as I inch ever closer to 5BDXCC. My employer even let us out a little early, so I should have plenty of time to get everything set up. Right?

Wrong.

It seemed simple enough. Just crank up the Acer and set the N1MM software for the WPX CW contest.   The Acer started ok, but for some reason, the N1MM software would not run. Strange, it ran just fine last time I tried it. Well, that's ok, the copy I have is a few months out of date anyway, I ought to update the software to the latest before the contest.

So, uninstall N1MM, go out to the site, grab the base (2011) installer, install it, then install the latest build. Try running. Oh, it says it has to reboot before you can run. Go to reboot - the Acer waits a long time at Logging Out....

And it was about time to go off to marital arts class, so I just left the computer Logging Out.... I figured it would be done by the time I got back, and maybe I would finish the setup then. But, after three hours of class, I was pretty beat and figured I would tackle that job in the morning.

So, around 1300z, I hop out to the shack and crank up the Acer -- and it is STILL Logging Out.... Well, it spent so long trying to log out that the computer went to sleep. I'm out of patience at this point. So, I pull the battery, and unplug the power, and poof, it is ready to reboot.

Turns out, the reason it was taking forever to log out was because it was installing updates. You see, somewhere in the infinite wisdom of the Windows designers, they decided that the best time to install updates was when you were trying to log out of the computer. It obviously never occurred to them that you might want to log out only to log back in on some other account, or perhaps just reboot the machine so some software you just installed would work. No. You say you are done using that account, and it's time for Windows to take over and install the almighty updates.

Oh, and if you happen to bypass that by yanking the power and rebooting the machine, Windows takes care of that by installing the updates when you boot up. But, at least during the boot-up phase, it gives you progress information as to what it is doing, rather than simply saying it is Logging Out....

Half an hour later, it finally finished the update process, and I could successfully run N1MM. Set it up for the WPX CW contest and....

It can't talk to the K3.

OK. It was working just fine back in March -- what changed? Well, nothing, really -- except I had just installed an upgraded copy of N1MM. The Elecraft K3 Utility has no trouble talking to the K3 at all through that same port. Hmm. Maybe I should go back to the old version that was working, except when it didn't work for some weird reason.

So, uninstall N1MM, go out to the site, grab the base (2011) installer, install it, then install the latest build. Go to reboot - the Acer waits a long time at Logging Out.... Hey, I just installed all those updates! Pop battery, pull plug, restart. OK, there's just a handful of updates, should only take a few minutes.

And, once Windows had finished updating AGAIN, run N1MM and.... It can't talk to the K3. Looking more closely, it is repeatedly reporting 8020 errors. A bit of searching the internet, and this appears to be a problem related to the serial port drivers. Seems some USB serial port drivers work fine with other applications (and the Elecraft K3 Utility had no trouble talking tot he K3)

So -- what changed? Looking at the Plugable site, the latest driver is v1.8, and that's exactly what's installed. However, from my work back in January, I remember a different version -- v1.7. Maybe that's what happened -- one of those many updates must have updated the serial port driver in a way that's no longer compatible with Visual Basic.

Easily fixed, right? Just install the old driver. Well, first you have to FIND the old driver. Unfortunately, I did not make a copy of it when I installed it in January. Fortunately, after about 15 minutes of searches, I did find a copy of v1.7. Uninstall, reinstall, and pray that plug-and-play doesn't just go update it all anyway.

Behold, start up N1MM and -- it can talk to the K3! It's now almost 1500z, I've wasted two hours of contesting time fighting with the stupid computer over what was, in reality, a dependency of the N1MM software on a serial communications driver that hasn't been supported by Microsoft for five years now. (All Visual Basic support ended in March 2008)

I need to wean myself off Windows software. If only there were decent contesting software for the Mac. Hmm.

USB to Serial

Re-arranged a few things in the Micro-Shack just before the RTTY Roundup.

For years, I have been using an ancient Toshiba 4000-series laptop. My wife bought this monstrosity back in the late 90's in order to work with custom embroidery software. I'd upgraded it to Windows 98 SE, and it managed to do OK running various Windows contest logging software. While I'd rather run stuff on the Mac anyway, writing some good contest software for the Mac has been one of my Great Unfinished Projects (GUP) for many years now. That's far too long a story to go into right now.

The old Toshiba 4000 wasn't much, 400 MHz Pentium, 800x600 screen. One serial, one parallel and one USB port. It didn't even have networking (much less wireless networking). Old.

When I purchased my MacBook, I set it up through BootCamp to boot in Windows 7. I had tried to run the Windows contest software using it, but I ran into a weird problem. Randomly, after a few minutes to an hour, the machine would flash the screen blue, then reboot. Certainly you could use this in a contest -- at least, not one you were serious about.

About the same time, I attended PDC 09 and came home with an Acer 1420P. Every attendee got one. Although Acer built it, Microsoft had specced this machine. The idea was pretty simple. Microsoft had been tired of evangelizing technologies such as Tablet PC, or 3G networking, Windows 7, etc. Only to have developers say "Well, I don't have a machine that does that." Instead, they seeded the 4000 or so attendees of the conference with these machines. Sweet.

I tried to use the Acer to run contest software, but ran into the same weird problem. Since I couldn't see what flashed up on the blue screen before the reboot, it was hard to tell what was going on. So, I went back to the old Toshiba, and the Acer found some utility at work. Until about a year ago, when the Acer took a tumble off a desk and cracked the screen. It still worked, but the two jagged cracks across the screen made it difficult to use.

My XYL wanted the Toshiba back to do some embroidery, so I went about fixing the Acer. I found a replacement screen for $70, which seemed a reasonable investment. The replacement didn't have the touch interface -- so no Tablet PC. Considering I have an iPad anyway, and Microsoft has moved beyond the Tablet PC with the Surface, it seemed to be a small loss.

As I was setting up for the RTTY Roundup, I ran into the same problem as before -- random BSOD and reboot. However, I'd learned more about Windows 7 in the intervening years. Turns out the automatic reboot is a "feature" you can turn off. Now I can read that blue screen.

After a couple of trials, the culprit appeared to be the driver for the Keyspan USA-19HS. You see, the one thing that the MacBook and Acer have in common (other than running Windows 7), is they have no serial ports. In order to talk with the K3/100, you need a serial port. So I used this Keyspan device that I bought several years ago. Updated drivers were no help. Same problem.

This surprise me somewhat. I really like the Keyspan. It works great on Mac OS X. I was a big fan of Keyspan products -- a decade or so ago, I even met a couple of their developers at Apple's WWDC. At least, I was a fan until Tripp-Lite bought them out. Now, I'm not so sure.

While I suffered through the RTTY Roundup with the occasional BSOD, this seemed like an easy problem to fix. Elecraft sells the KUSB device which would be sure to work, but it's a little expensive at $40. I found a Plugable 2303 USB to Serial converter on Amazon for $13. I was encouraged when I read the driver release notes for this device had the same BSOD problem on Windows 7, but it had been fixed in the latest release.

I got a chance to try it earlier this week. Getting the drivers and setting the thing up was an experience, but not atypical for Windows. Once configured, I cranked up N1MM, put the K3 in TEST mode, and set it up to repeat CQ in CW after 1 second and left it for a few hours. All the DTR access should give the serial port a work-out. Six hours and no BSOD. Seems like it works.

The Plugable 2303 appears to be a good solution. I also tried it on MacOS X. Works fine there. It appears I can retire the Keyspan USA-19HS to MacOS X-only use.

K3!

K3/100 build and under the Christmas tree.

I have the best wife in the entire world.

When it came time to make our Christmas lists this year, I had mentioned that it had been ten years since I bought my last ham transceiver -- I finished the KPA100 for the K2 in the fall of 2002. And while it might be time to look at something new, modern transceivers are not cheap. In the end, I decided to ask for contributions toward the "K3" fund -- money I would use to buy an Elecraft K3 at some point in the future.

Before Christmas, my wife had hinted she had gotten me something expensive. She would tease me that she had purchased a Cessna 140 or a Harley-Davidson. She did it often enough I wasn't sure what to believe.

Inside these boxes is a bit of joy.

However, due to some shipping difficulties, my present didn't arrive until three days after Christmas.

Needless to say, I was surprised to open the box find a stock K3/100!

She had the presence of mind to get me the unassembled version, instead of the factory-built. While it's a bit more work, I really enjoyed assembling my K2/100, so I figured I'd get some enjoyment out of this.

Biggest problem, though, was where to build. The Micro-Shack is, well, micro. The entire desk surface is barely 5 by 2 1/2 feet. Most of my tools are still down at the QTH in Gwinnett county. Nevertheless, I figured I'd do what I could with what I had, rather than wait a week or so until I could get to my big workbench.

K3/100 goes together on the world's smallest workbench.

As it stands, I had enough room for the job.

It was already late in the day when I got started, so I decided to forgo the Elecraft-recommended inventory. I've built a number of their kits, and I can't say I've ever been shorted a part. Indeed, they always seemed to ship me extras. In retrospect, this wasn't such a bad idea. If you've never built a kit before, inventorying the kit is a great idea.

Since all the boards are pre-assembled, there's no need to warm up a soldering iron. However, there's plenty of mechanical assembly. I thought it was weird that Elecraft has one put the left and right side panels on, only to have you remove them a few steps later.

I had never really seen the insides of a K3 before, and the pictures don't do it justice. In some ways, it really is like an over-sized K2, with the mechanical rigidity coming from the main board. Once you get the casing on, it's really pretty rugged.

Initial power-on successful.

Assembly was pretty much a joy, except for the limited work space. I had a great sigh of relief the first time I powered the K3 on, since it was clear I hadn't messed it up somehow.

I did have one item I did mess up during assembly. It was the KREF3 board. The instructions indicate you are to cut off any leads that might be longer than certain components on the board. I found a through-hole connector lead that I thought was a bit long, and when I tried to trim it, I also managed to bust capacitor C2 off the board. Fortunately, this component isn't used for anything critical. My guess is that it is used for FM only, but there's not really any documentation as to what the TXMIXFIL signal does. I've already contacted Elecraft support as to how they suggest we fix this.

After about six hours of work, my K3/100 was all assembled and calibrated. I only ran into one issue -- I had no dummy load to perform the Transmitter Gain Calibration. I ended up doing the calibration manually using the antennas I have on hand. Not perfect perhaps, but it will do until I can get my hands on a dummy load.

K3/100 assembled and operational.

Now that it's assembled, I have to go an order the other options I need. Unfortunately, the KAT100 doesn't work with the K3. I went ahead and used some of that "K3 Fund" money and ordered the KAT3 antenna tuner as well as the KXV3A transverter adapter. That should do me for quite some time.

Now, I need to sit back and read this thick operating manual so I know how to use my new rig! See you on the bands.

Surfacing...

Paul Thurrott wrote an article about the impending release of Windows 8, Windows RT and Surface. He's got one thing right, Microsoft has a problem. Apple and Google have gotten a big head start, and Microsoft is coming to the game late. Windows Phone 7, while technically interesting, hasn't gained any traction in the market. They are betting a lot on Windows 8.

But, there's one thing that bothers me. It's this assertion of Thurrott that devices like the iPad aren't computers:

Windows RT is not a computer operating system. Windows RT is an operating system for mobile devices.

Surface with Windows RT is not a computer. It is mobile computing device, like an iPad. It is a tablet, a hybrid device that bridges the gap between real PCs and media tablets, where you can work and play.

Who came up with this "media tablet" name, anyway? As if devices like the iPad are only useful for consuming, not creating? It's the same journalists who have spent 20 years reporting on the personal computer market -- who have been focusing on the desktop for so long they can't see anything else.

The computer marketplace has always been about change. We had huge mainframes at first, and then came the minicomputers. They weren't anything like the mainframes, and journalists didn't think they were computers, either. And just as these minicomputers started to build a big market, they came out with microcomputers.

It's been a long time since we called them microcomputers. That's where the micro in Microsoft comes from. They weren't viewed as "real" computers either. And then they, too, took over the market.

And those microcomputers have gotten smaller and smaller while at the same time getting more and more powerful. My iPhone 4S has more memory and computing power than the supercomputer I used at college 30 years ago. Why can't it be a "real" computer?

Sure, an iPad doesn't look like former PCs. It's mostly screen and battery. But it's a natural evolution of the personal computer. There's no reason you can't use an iPad, or a device like it to do "real" computing.

Indeed, the iPad is the new face of computing. Just like the microcomputer before replaced the minicomputer -- tablets like the iPad will replace the PC. It's just a matter of time.

Scratching the (Microsoft) Surface

Microsoft announced this week a new line of tablet computers running Windows. The announcement event had more than it's share of balky demos and unresponsive machines. The most curious thing, however, was the most distinctive feature of the Surface devices -- the embedded keyboard/cover. Although Microsoft had "hands-on" event, none of those present were actually permitted to try the keyboard. Add to this the fact that no pricing was announced and it just gives the entire event a forced feel -- like the products just weren't quite ready to announce.

John Gruber has perhaps the best analysis of this: "I presume Microsoft timed this event to jump ahead of anything Google might be announcing at their I/O conference next week — and the consensus seems to be that Google is going to announce much the same idea: their own Google-branded, Google-designed tablet that will put them in direct competition not just with Apple but with their own OS licensees."

Contrast this with Apple's announcement of the iPad. There were certainly plenty of rumours that Apple had been developing a tablet device. They had been circulating for years. In fact, the Apple rumour mill had gotten very tired of this story by the time of the announcement in January 2010. But Apple's announcement event was smooth and polished, full pricing information was given and pre-orders were taken within 60 days.

There's no doubt that the iPad has been a complete breakthrough product. And despite a host of challengers introduced in the last two years, none have really made an impact. Currently, there is no "tablet" market. Not yet. There's only an iPad market. 

I welcome Surface, just as I've welcomed the other iPad competitors. Competition is a good thing. When Windows Phone Series 7 was introduced during PDC '10, I thought it was a good thing. Frankly, I'm disappointed that it hasn't done better in the market. It's natural for any market to have three or four strong competitors, all pushing each other to produce better and better products and more attractive prices.

On this note, the personal computer market was a complete anomaly for over two decades. At first, it was dominated by the IBM PC. However, due to bad management, IBM had leaked enough technical details to allow their product to be copied, so the market became dominated with PC "clones." IBM tried to remedy this situation by introducing the Micro-channel Architecture, which required vendors to license certain technology in order to produce clones. (I fondly remember walking around COMDEX in the late 80's, finding some cool ISA hardware board, and then asking them if they had an MCA version available) But the market had already been wrested from IBM's hands, and placed in those of Microsoft, who's MS-DOS ran on all those clones.

Microsoft leveraged that OS monopoly into another, with Windows. Soon Microsoft dictated the hardware requirements to the clone makers, and stifled any upstart OS that threatened to emerge. Sure, there were competitors, such as Apple, who made arguably better computers, but they held an insignificant portion of the market. But it didn't last.

The problem with monopolies like this is they tend to stifle innovation. The best example is Microsoft itself -- with Internet Explorer. Microsoft recognized in late 1994 that the internet was a threat to their OS monopoly. They bought the Spyglass browser and turned it into Internet Explorer 1 in August 1995. There ensued a frenzy of innovation effort which brought us to IE 6 within six years. And then -- nothing for over five years. By 2001, Microsoft had achieved complete market dominance with an 85-90% market share in the browser space. Only when competition appeared again in the form of Mozilla and WebKit-based browsers did they again release new version of Internet Explorer. 

And, today, the browser market space is dominated by four strong competitors, each with 20-25% market share. That's a normal market.

There's too many writers in the computer press who are used to the anomaly -- with one competitor completely dominating the market. After all, it makes their job eaiser. All they have to do is follow the market dominator.

You'd think the press would embrace Apple's dominance in the tablet space. But no, it can't possibly be Apple. Apple was too long the beleaguered also-ran. By 1997, the press had given them up for dead. And there was certainly a lot of evidence for that. 

Apple proved it could successfully dominate the market with the iPod, another product many competitors tried unsuccessfully to compete with. Yet the press still looks to Microsoft.

After Apple announced the iPhone, Palm's Ed Colligan said, "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in." Of course, the funny thing is -- they did. And not just once with iPhone, but a second time with Android. There's always room, even in a crowded market, for innovative products.

So, while I welcome the Surface to the market, I'm not really considering buying one. But I welcome the innovation it brings -- because this benefits all consumers. If nothing else, I can't wait for the next iPad...

Retrospective - 1997 WWDC Fireside "chat"

With this week's untimely death of Steve Jobs, I was thinking of the few times my life had intersected with Steve -- this was the closest I had come.

John Gruber recently linked to a video of this very special WWDC session. The video quality is horrible, but the talk is interesting. I remember this session well.

I was there.

I was sitting somewhere on the left aisle of the audience, about 1/3 back from the front, which was my usual spot for most sessions. It was my first experience in the "reality distortion field" of Steve Jobs. I must say, there was definitely something to it.

The moment in time this talk took place is worth noting. Steve Jobs was just an "advisor" and his opinion "didn't count." A couple of weeks after this talk, Jobs would sell all but one share of his Apple stock, which would precipitate a stockholder crisis that eventually lead to the ouster of Gilbert Amelio about a month later.

Jobs would step into the resulting power vacuum and assume control. But that hadn't happened yet.

It's most interesting to look at how Jobs answered the questions from the floor. He took each one seriously, and did not try to answer right away. It was more important to give a good answer, than give a quick answer.

There was certainly controversy at this WWDC. Apple had killed off OpenDoc, which developers had been anticipating for three years. While answering questions about Newton, Jobs pointed out the difficulty companies have supporting even one application stack, much less two. Three was almost out of the question. (And Jobs would kill off Newton as soon as he gained control that summer)

Jobs discussed many of the benefits of Rhapsody, but that concept didn't last a year. By WWDC 98, Apple abandoned the Yellow Box on Windows. The development tools were good, but perhaps 5-10 times better is something of an exaggeration.

Jobs wanted Mac cloners build whatever hardware they wanted, but wanted a lot more money for the MacOS license. Even when he took control, that wouldn't happen.

And while there was no revolution with Gigibit ethernet replacing hard drives, the network certainly plays a larger and larger role today. Most interesting near the end of this talk that Jobs describes a hand-held device that has cellular networking and a hardware keyboard -- he perfectly predicts the entry of the Blackberry, which would be announced 18 months later, and would dominate its category for nearly a decade. His vision extended even to products Apple would not produce.

iPad

OK, I'll admit. I have been an Apple fan for more than 25 years. I first laid hands on the Lisa and the Macintosh in the summer of 1984, and I began programming the Mac in August of 1984. I've been an Apple developer off and on since then. Virtually all my home computers are Macs, and I've encouraged my friends to buy Mac for years.

However, I 'm not what you call a raving Apple fan-boy. I thought the iPhone was interesting, but I wasn't one of those who stood in line for the original 2G, or the 3G,  or the 3GS release. My biggest problem was that I felt I already spent far too much each month for my cellular wireless service, why spring for $30 more each month for the data service?

My wife convinced me to get an iPhone 3GS Christmas 2009. I've been using it for a over and year, and I'm pretty impressed with it. However, the screen being small there's really a limit to what you can do with it. After a year, though, I'm not going back to a feature-phone.

My wife surprised me this year with a special present for my birthday: an iPad. I had tried them out at the Apple store before, but hadn't spent a lot of time with it. After a week of using this little device, I find I am way more impressed with it than with the iPhone. The iPad may well-be a game changer. I'll say something that you shouldn't take lightly from this long-time Mac user:

The iPad redefines the paradigm of computing, the same way the Macintosh did in 1984.

Your first impression may be that the iPad is just a bigger iPod Touch. But there's a profound difference. The bigger screen invites a more immersive computing experience. Touching the screen directly creates a very intimate connection with the applications. And the use of gestures dramatically reduces the visual clutter required to drive our mouse-and-keyboard machines.

It is very hard to articulate, but I am convinced that the computing experience 20 years from now will look remarkably like the iPad, and not as much like the Macintosh. I felt the same way 25 years ago, after using the Macintosh -- and that feeling was correct. The Macintosh, Windows and even Linux machines offer a roughly equivalent computing experience: a graphical user interface, driven with a mouse and keyboard.

Alas, Macworld, we hardly knew ye....

Well, tomorrow brings the last keynote of what is most likely the last Macworld of any import. Of course, IDG may well try to host Macworld without Apple next year. We all know how well that worked in Boston.

In any case, I don't think that trade shows really matter much any more. Back in the early days of microcomputers (back when we still called them that), trade shows were a pretty effective way to generate some buzz about your new product. The first Macworld was incredibly well attended. I worked the booth for my employer -- I was scheduled for two hours on, and one hour off alternating through the day, but the reality was that I worked seven and a half hours for three days straight. My feet hurt just thinking about it. (And this was back when we wore suits and wingtips at trade shows, too)

Today, one can generate quite a bit of buzz about a new product or service just by making a press release and a couple of Twitter tweets. The internet has us so interconnected that it's just not hard to communicate.

Of course, the other thing about trade shows is that they had gotten so big that your message was getting diluted. Consider what might have happened if Apple had introduced the iPhone and CES instead of Macworld. 

Chuq Von Rospach noted that Macworld caused all kinds of problems for Apple -- from people working through the holidays to messing with the delivery schedule for products. The real truth is that Apple has outgrown Macworld. Apple can generate buzz any time, just by calling a press event -- or perhaps by not calling one. That always gets the rumour mills hopping.

Apple will still have their annual WWDC as a platform for regular announcements. It's curious to me that Microsoft hasn't copied this idea. Sure, they have PDC -- but they only call for a conference when they feel there's some release of note. If they were smart, they do it every year.