Re: Localtalk gateway/bridge

["william strutts" <wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com>]

"Mark Cummings" <figjams@primus.com.au> wrote in message
3b9b784d@news.iprimus.com.au">news:3b9b784d@news.iprimus.com.au...
> >Well, for one, 10baseT requires no termination.
>
> true, but no big deal, two terminators total, same as AppleTalk. And if
you
> have more than two computers you do need a hub. Hubs still cost more than
> terminators last time I woke up. A lot more.

I have gotten hubs for around $20 so not a great cost and its better
than runnig a continuous cable between stations. I have computers
in three different rooms so a continuous cable would be a pain.

> incorrect, you can remove any PC/Mac on the 10Base2 without breaking the
> chain. Just remove the "T" piece from your computer without taking the
cable
> off, easy. We do it at work, although we have to be careful. Again same as
> AppleTalk, it can also be disconnected at the mini-din8 connector, leaving
> the cables connected to the transceiver.

While true, it would still require you to keep the cable there even if
there is no station located there anymore.

> I don't think you are listening, I am using this in a home network. Who
> cares if I interupt the chain when I add a computer. Even if I do, it will
> be minimul. If you are quick, you can disconnect the old terminator and
> re-connect the new cable (with terminator) with no noticable disruption.

Yes. The question was what are the advantages of 10baseT over
coax cable BNC connections.  That was the answer for why the
industry moved to that setup.

> As I said before, using coax without a hub or router will always use less
> cable than a star config. _Always_. Get a piece of paper and draw any
> configuation of computers you like, now draw a line through all computers
in
> the shortest path possible. Then try the same using a hub and put it in
the
> best location you can. Now draw a line from all the computers to that.
> Measure all the line lengths between the two methods and send me a drawing
> when your star config is shorter ! I won't hold my breath, but you can if
> you want.
> And one last thing, if your hub breaks, you have no network until it's
fixed
> or replaced. If I have a failure, all I lose is one computer.

While it may be true that it would be shorter, it is not as nice as
a star configuration in large installations. A home network is acceptable
but an business network it is a bit iffy. If you were wiring a college
campus, it would be a major pain to do it without a star configuration.

> And read my last post on the speed thing. Sometimes I wonder if I am the
> only person that hasn't been sucked in to this speed hungry PC crap.

If we are limited to older Macs and IIgs's, you are right that the
speed is not important. That is why on my home network I only
use 10baseT instead of 100baseT which the computer saleman would
have pushed on me. I really don't do anything that important across
my home network. However, if I was doing the network for
a 5000 station business network like we had at GM, there is
no way I wouldn't have at least wired the connection between
the hub and the server with 100baseT connections. It would
be insane to use slower speeds when I have that many users..
The nice thing about hubs is that its speed switchable to the
devices attached to it.  Hence, the workstations could still
be using 10baseT. The network backbone could be using
100baseT or faster.
--
--
William R. Strutts - wrstrutts1@nospam.home.com - Whatever!

C'est moi!  http://www.facelink.com/wrstrutts

Just hacking away...

Remove nospam to reply.