|
midrange.com
Pat,
Not that we'll ever change your mind, but we used to have a lot of twinax,
or twisted pair equivalents. I've been out of the wiring end of the
business for quite some time now but I remember spending a lot of time in
attics and wiring closets (and damn near falling through drop ceilings)
trying to get the crud working. Had a boss that argued that it must be
okay since there are so many suppliers of twinax boosters and like
equipment. My argument was that there were so many because there was a
market for the stuff. Basically that it is so inferior that you had to
have boosters and what not to get it functioning. New VP of IS doesn't
mess around. Fiber backbone throughout the campus. Rewired all the walls
with Cat5. Much nicer. When a PC drops to one 400, keeps going to
another. Nope, don't miss twinax at all.
Rob Berendt
==================
Remember the Cole!
Pat Barber
<mboceanside@worldne To: MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com
t.att.net> cc:
Sent by: Subject: Re: V4R5, Twinax &
SNA
owner-midrange-l@mid
range.com
10/18/00 10:25 AM
Please respond to
MIDRANGE-L
Bob Crothers wrote:
>
> All,
>
> I am hearing rumors that in V4R5, IBM is dropping support for LU6.2 over
> twinax. This means the DOS routers and Windows SNA routers that work
over
> twinax.
Not very likely..... A few of their own products use this support as
well
as a number of other vendors... The question I would ask, is "why" would
they do that ??? LU6.2 is a basic communication function used by a lot
more than twinax support.
> I have a hard time believing this. But then, I had a hard time believing
> the e(logo)Server fiasco.
> And yes, I agree that TCP/IP over Ethernet is a much better way to
connect.
> But, I am not in the habit of arguing with my customers. If they want to
> twinax attach our products, then so be it.
I don't agree with you on that....TCP/IP continues to cause more
problems
than it solves. I have noticed a trend in a LOT of the threads
concerning
TCP/IP and the many mysteries it creates. I know it's getting better,
but
twinax/twisted pair continues to be the most solid connection. I have
put in plenty of both and I prefer for my terminals and printers to at
least recognize when the conmnection is broken. I'm sure a lot of other
folks feel differently. Problem determination for TCP/IP almost doesn't
exist. This seems to be the daily thread on this group and even the news
groups..."I can't get my printer attached by TCP/IP to work".
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to
MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator:
david@midrange.com
+---
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2024 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.
