Hi all, I have loaded virtually every firmware version that ever came out without a single incident, using several different USB adapters (never had a real serial port with the K3) and several computers. So I don't have problem with this at all. With this said, it does appear that a few things could be improved when there *is* a problem with the communications. The idea of testing the serial communications before committing to the update is a good one. Also it does seem that the utility could be improved in it's ability to recover from errors and give more meaningful messages to the users. Bootloaders are inherently dumb and they need to be in order to keep them small. To expect it to be able to cope with "unexpected" commands is simply expecting too much.
AB2TC - Knut PS. The PIC processor with 128kb of flash and 4kB of RAM, oboy that seems like a flashback to another century to me. I am amazed at the Elecraft programmers being able to cram the current functionality into this extremely limited space. Dick Dievendorff wrote: > > We do check each block with a checksum. We do have a per block ACK. I > can't tell if a Microham device us inline... > > > > Dick > > <snip> > -- View this message in context: http://elecraft.365791.n2.nabble.com/Fwd-K3-Failed-DSP-Firmware-Download-tp5996916p5998672.html Sent from the [K3] 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:[email protected] This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
