Atmega 163 Or Funcard 4?

english

Inactive User
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
5,571
Reaction score
101
Location
pepperland
Alright lads is there a difference (apart from the price!)? Which cards are best and cheapest for ntl pure? Many thanks



:Cheers:
 
i use funcards m8 they are extremely cheap (£3.40) and easy to programme. Very little can go wrong with them, they can be made in auto update funcards or just a normal funcard very easily. Personal choice but funcards for me. And iv had my funcards for years and years so they last as well.
 
johnlennon said:
Alright lads is there a difference (apart from the price!)? Which cards are best and cheapest for ntl pure? Many thanks



:Cheers:

1st choice always a funcard ........:)
 
yes funcards are good i prefer the atmega ,i think they have a bigger memory but in the end they both do a good job so its prefernce thing
 
are they not both the same near enough. is it not the funs that normally get knocked off first by the cable company? i would use mosc don't seem to get knocked off as much.
 
the au funs and atmega dont get knocked off its the non au,s that suffer personally ive got an opos card thats been running for over a year now without any problems at all but im gonna try a mosc and see what its like
 
At the moment they are, to all intents and purposes, both running the same program so there is little difference in the functionality. The ATMega is slightly faster at updating due to having a hardware multiply instruction that is lacking on the funcard.

The only real difference is that the program is shoehorned into the Funcard and there is little room for any enhancements or changes (perhaps new keyroll types). The ATMega, on the other hand, has oodles of space left and could comfortably handle many more keyroll types as well as the present one.
 
nozzer said:
At the moment they are, to all intents and purposes, both running the same program so there is little difference in the functionality. The ATMega is slightly faster at updating due to having a hardware multiply instruction that is lacking on the funcard.

The only real difference is that the program is shoehorned into the Funcard and there is little room for any enhancements or changes (perhaps new keyroll types). The ATMega, on the other hand, has oodles of space left and could comfortably handle many more keyroll types as well as the present one.
and if nozzer says that youd better believe it
 
Thanks guys, your the best. Looks like funcards for me nice one.




:proud:
 
Back
Top