Re: bcd436hp


don robinson
 

Saw 8" floppies used in Zendex computers in the  early 1980's- half meg computers- good for word processing by transcribers-those monsters cost $20,000 each. An Atari 520 ST  a few years later was more advanced and only cost $500 and used 3.5" floppies like the MacIntosh. I still love my BCD396xlt, but have been thinking about  the later model Bearcats.......but are they harder to program than the 396? If a scanner comes out that can decode encryption, I may pull the trigger.

On Saturday, April 18, 2020, 12:22:53 PM PDT, Jim Shipp <jimshipp@...> wrote:


Joe,
Don't think there was ever a floppy disk larger than 8-inch. I never
used  8-inch on a computer per se, but only on a dedicated "word processor."
Jim
ex-WN8YHD

At Saturday 03:00 PM 4/18/2020, you wrote:
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>I don't recall Motorola or GE ever supplying SW on 8" floppies.
>Somewhere around I have some 12" (I think) floppies - maybe larger.
>I recall Motorola having 5/25", then 3", then CDs.
>
>Ahhh yes. The BC101. That was the 5th generation.
>Many people don't realize that 101 was binary for V (5).
>
>Bearcat, Bearcat II, BC-III, BC-IV, BC-101. (The Electra days)
>
>I believe I still have at least one of each of the above.
>
>Then they jumped from 5 to 210 then started appending letters. :-\
>
>My favorite of the era? BC300. The BC100 (no letters) was a close
>second - a portable scanner that needed no crystals! And 16
>channels? WOW! (or was it 10 channels?)
>
>Joe M.
>
>On 4/18/2020 2:27 PM, clive frazier via groups.io wrote:
>>Joe:
>>
>>Software use to come on 8 inch floppies. The computer booted up using
>>paper tape read through the teletype machine.
>>
>>Having a 10 MEG hard drive was a luxury. People questioned the need for
>>such a large hard drive. It fit in a 19 inch rack. You would NEVER need
>>that much storage space.
>>
>>And DOS was the operating system.
>>
>>And the first Bearcat scanners that had push-buttons to program in the
>>frequency were a great step ahead of crystal controlled scanners.
>>
>>Clive, K9FWF
>>
>>
>>
>>On Friday, April 17, 2020, 01:16:12 PM CDT, Joe M. <mch@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>One thing Jim didn't mention is the learning curve. A brief anecdote:
>>
>>Back in the 80s, I learned radio programming on GE software (anyone
>>remember them?). Then when GE's delivery times got ridiculous (more than
>>a whole year from order to delivery - REALLY!) I had to learn Motorola
>>software. You would think programming one brand vs another would be
>>simple. NOT SO! It was almost like learning from scratch again.
>>Software came on 5.25" floppy disks back then. (anyone remember those?)
>>
>>A few key concepts for Motorola:
>>A "mode" is what most call a "channel".
>>A "codeplug" is what most call a "file" or "programming".
>>CG (Channel Guard) became PL (Private Line). (both are just CTCSS)
>>
>>I won't even get into "templates". I'm sure Jim knows those too well.
>>
>>So I can appreciate the fact that even Jim knows Motorola (assuming)
>>software, Sentinel is a completely different animal.
>>
>>This is also true with scanner software from different authors. That is
>>why I have such little input on scanner SW recommendations and "which is
>>best". The "best" is what you know for the most part. That's not to say
>>it is the best overall, but it is the best *for you*.
>>
>>Joe M.
>>
>>On 4/17/2020 1:58 PM, Jim Walls wrote:
>>  > On 04/17/2020 10:38, Bernie Burawski wrote:
>>  >> You are right that the scanners are getting more difficult to program,
>>  >> but you then have to study the directions carefully; I just don't like
>>  >> to have to read a long narrative and study the procedures until I feel
>>  >> comfortable programming. Scanning is getting more and more complicated
>>  >> and that won't change,.
>>  >
>>  > That is a true statement.  Scanners are more complicated because the
>>  > radio systems are more complicated.  If you think that programming your
>>  > scanner is hard, try real radios.  I run a regional trunked system for a
>>  > living, and writing codeplugs for various radios is a major part of my
>>  > job.  The only advantage that we have is that we have KNOWN CORRECT
>>  > information - as opposed to what scanner users often have, which is only
>>  > partially right (or in many cases, flat out wrong) information on
>>  > frequencies, talkgroups, etc.  When I bought my SDS100, I programmed the
>>  > system I run into it first from what RadioReference had, but then spent
>>  > hours fixing it.  For me that was largely academic since I have multiple
>>  > radios on the system, but it helped me learn the Sentinal software and
>>  > the scanner.
>>  >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>        Virus-free. www.avg.com
>><http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>>
>>
>><#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
>




Join main@Uniden.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.