See also: PCI-E. Supposedly, at insane data rates (real circuit bandwidth
1GHz), even if signal quality can be managed, propagation skew between bus
lines is ever more difficult (have you seen all the squiggles on a
motherboard between processor, northbridge and RAM?). So why not skip bus
width altogether, crank the clock rate (pushing circuit bandwidth even more
though), and use multiple asynchronous channels. The advantage lies in
clocking each stream at its own rate, rather than clocking 32 or 64 bits at
an identical rate. Bytes could arrive out-of-order, but buffering done
on-chip is a lot faster than a maze of wires on-board.

Tim

I've got no argument with what you're saying. There's are newer bus
technologies in the works but until a serialized processor comes out,
what's the point of switching to serial peripherals? If the processor
is outputting parallel data lines and has to be addressed in the same
way, why not deal with the race conditions of the parallel busses?

I'm having a major headache right now trying to adapt an LG
Electronics optical drive to an older Intel ICH4 SATA controller.
IMHO, Intel released the controller long before it was workable. Even
the next generation, ICH5, was limited in structure. It allowed for 2
PATA controllers and a SATA controller with the provision that all
could not be used together. Intel did not make them BIOS selectable
because they knew certain combinations could be disasterous. So they
left the configuration up to the OS manufacturer.

Thanks!! Now I can't get information from Intel, Silicon Image,
Microsoft or LG Electronics. They dump this crap on you with the spin
that they are new technology and will improve things. When I heard
that about twisted-pair technology, I nearly crapped. People bought
into it, some thinking twisted pair had suddenly become superior to
coax, just because they twisted it better. Anyone believing that has a
serious issue with technological understanding, like the fatbytestard.

See also: PCI-E. Supposedly, at insane data rates (real circuit bandwidth
1GHz), even if signal quality can be managed, propagation skew between bus
lines is ever more difficult (have you seen all the squiggles on a
motherboard between processor, northbridge and RAM?). So why not skip bus
width altogether, crank the clock rate (pushing circuit bandwidth even more
though), and use multiple asynchronous channels. The advantage lies in
clocking each stream at its own rate, rather than clocking 32 or 64 bits at
an identical rate. Bytes could arrive out-of-order, but buffering done
on-chip is a lot faster than a maze of wires on-board.

Tim

I've got no argument with what you're saying. There's are newer bus
technologies in the works but until a serialized processor comes out,
what's the point of switching to serial peripherals? If the processor
is outputting parallel data lines and has to be addressed in the same
way, why not deal with the race conditions of the parallel busses?

I'm having a major headache right now trying to adapt an LG
Electronics optical drive to an older Intel ICH4 SATA controller.
IMHO, Intel released the controller long before it was workable. Even
the next generation, ICH5, was limited in structure. It allowed for 2
PATA controllers and a SATA controller with the provision that all
could not be used together. Intel did not make them BIOS selectable
because they knew certain combinations could be disasterous. So they
left the configuration up to the OS manufacturer.

Thanks!! Now I can't get information from Intel, Silicon Image,
Microsoft or LG Electronics. They dump this crap on you with the spin
that they are new technology and will improve things. When I heard
that about twisted-pair technology, I nearly crapped. People bought
into it, some thinking twisted pair had suddenly become superior to
coax, just because they twisted it better. Anyone believing that has a
serious issue with technological understanding, like the fatbytestard.

This 'reflects' proper avenues as clock rates climb (a little data
transfer joke there). Definitely the right way. Managing little capture
buffers is far better than managing errant data. I'll bet that serial
allows one to downsize error correction overhead as well... or
could/should anyway.

**** off you dumb ****. You use a lot of words without having the
vaguest sense of what they mean.

This 'reflects' proper avenues as clock rates climb (a little data
transfer joke there). Definitely the right way. Managing little capture
buffers is far better than managing errant data. I'll bet that serial
allows one to downsize error correction overhead as well... or
could/should anyway.

**** off you dumb ****. You use a lot of words without having the
vaguest sense of what they mean.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:44:36 -0700, wrote:

There is no advantage of using
SATA over PATA,


You're a goddamned retarded twit.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:44:36 -0700, wrote:

There is no advantage of using
SATA over PATA,


You're a goddamned retarded twit.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:59:16 -0700, wrote:

**** off you dumb ****.


Bwuahahahahah! Ever make it past the age of 13 mentally?

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:59:16 -0700, wrote:

**** off you dumb ****.


Bwuahahahahah! Ever make it past the age of 13 mentally?

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:57:08 -0700, wrote:


Thanks!! Now I can't get information from Intel, Silicon Image,
Microsoft or LG Electronics. They dump this crap on you with the spin
that they are new technology and will improve things. When I heard
that about twisted-pair technology, I nearly crapped. People bought
into it, some thinking twisted pair had suddenly become superior to
coax, just because they twisted it better. Anyone believing that has a
serious issue with technological understanding, like the fatbytestard.


I installed Thomas Conrad Network Systems networks 15 years ago. The
hubs were VERY expensive(several thousand dollars each), and the cards
were half a grand each. They were a mere 100 Mb/s claimed speed, and
that only with their proprietary transfer protocol. So there wasn't a
whole lot of bang for that buck.

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of ****. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 21:57:08 -0700, wrote:


Thanks!! Now I can't get information from Intel, Silicon Image,
Microsoft or LG Electronics. They dump this crap on you with the spin
that they are new technology and will improve things. When I heard
that about twisted-pair technology, I nearly crapped. People bought
into it, some thinking twisted pair had suddenly become superior to
coax, just because they twisted it better. Anyone believing that has a
serious issue with technological understanding, like the fatbytestard.


I installed Thomas Conrad Network Systems networks 15 years ago. The
hubs were VERY expensive(several thousand dollars each), and the cards
were half a grand each. They were a mere 100 Mb/s claimed speed, and
that only with their proprietary transfer protocol. So there wasn't a
whole lot of bang for that buck.

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of ****. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

On 2009-05-25, FatBytestard wrote:

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of ****. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

10base2 was about 5 times faster than that over RG58A/U coax.

perhaps you are thinking of arcnet.

On 26 May 2009 11:52:14 GMT, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2009-05-25, FatBytestard wrote:

The current (at the time) 10 base T solutions were a lot cheaper and
used industry wide transfer protocols, and THAT is why businesses bought
twisted pair, you retarded little piece of ****. Running light weight,
cheap twisted pair is a LOT cheaper than running coax was, and coax
topped out at 2Mb/s back then as it was ABANDONED by the ETHERNET
standard, and was a hell of a lot harder to make the drops for.

10base2 was about 5 times faster than that over RG58A/U coax.

That is what *I* said!


perhaps you are thinking of arcnet.


Arcnet was 360kb/s!

Read it again.

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:24:28 -0500, flipper wrote:


No, you said coax Ethernet "topped out at 2Mb/s." 10base2 is (thin)
coax Ethernet running 10Mb/s. As Jasen said, "5 times faster" than
what you said.

10base Ethernet is 10Mb/s whether it's twisted pair (-T) or coax (2 or
5) or fiber (-FL). That's what the "10" means.


Except that the coax implementations were tied to the cards they were
attached to and those were 2Mb/s. By the time the 10Mb/s stuff hit the
streets, folks were buying twisted pair solutions, and coax was
practically completely abandoned. The card makers stopped putting coax
I/O ports on the cards, and rj45 became all you could get, Ethernet wise.

TCNS and MS had some proprietary protocol Star configurations, and
there were a few others, but Ethernet ended up winning because it kept up
speed wise, and was considerably cheaper. Now, I don't even know if any
other methods exist, except for fiber, of course. What other wired
solutions are there currently?

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:58:18 -0700, FatBytestard
wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:24:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

No, you said coax Ethernet "topped out at 2Mb/s." 10base2 is (thin)
coax Ethernet running 10Mb/s. As Jasen said, "5 times faster" than
what you said.

10base Ethernet is 10Mb/s whether it's twisted pair (-T) or coax (2 or
5) or fiber (-FL). That's what the "10" means.

Except that the coax implementations were tied to the cards they were
attached to and those were 2Mb/s.

Maybe whatever the heck you had was 2Mb/s but my Ethernet cards were
10Mb/s and I've still got the cards, cable, and T connectors around
here somewhere but it's been so long I don't recall where that 'old
parts' box ended up.

By the time the 10Mb/s stuff hit the
streets, folks were buying twisted pair solutions, and coax was
practically completely abandoned. The card makers stopped putting coax
I/O ports on the cards, and rj45 became all you could get, Ethernet wise.

The 10Mb/s cards with both coax and RJ45 connectors I can still find
because some are in the PCI 'old parts' box.

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.

On Thu, 28 May 2009 23:25:07 -0500, flipper wrote:

On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:58:18 -0700, FatBytestard
wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:24:28 -0500, flipper wrote:


No, you said coax Ethernet "topped out at 2Mb/s." 10base2 is (thin)
coax Ethernet running 10Mb/s. As Jasen said, "5 times faster" than
what you said.

10base Ethernet is 10Mb/s whether it's twisted pair (-T) or coax (2 or
5) or fiber (-FL). That's what the "10" means.


Except that the coax implementations were tied to the cards they were
attached to and those were 2Mb/s.

Maybe whatever the heck you had was 2Mb/s but my Ethernet cards were
10Mb/s and I've still got the cards, cable, and T connectors around
here somewhere but it's been so long I don't recall where that 'old
parts' box ended up.

10 was the hardware speed of the twisted pair connection. "Cheapernet"
used the same card, but the comm protocols meant that you would only see
about 2, and that only on a good day.

By the time the 10Mb/s stuff hit the
streets, folks were buying twisted pair solutions, and coax was
practically completely abandoned. The card makers stopped putting coax
I/O ports on the cards, and rj45 became all you could get, Ethernet wise.

The 10Mb/s cards with both coax and RJ45 connectors I can still find
because some are in the PCI 'old parts' box.

Yes, and the RJ45 DOES do 10Mb/s, but the coax does NOT.

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

Not in Ethernet. TCNS and a couple other proprietary bits of hardware
made it out, but Ethernet was twisted pair only by the time is was
actually able to push the 10Mb/s streams it touted itself as being able
to push. The coax never did from my memory.

What other wired
solutions are there currently?

Not even going to try?

On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:46:53 +0200, Sjouke Burry wrote:

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.

Ethernet is specified in Mbits/sec. 10-base-anything is 10 Mbits/sec.

10base2 is coax with RG-58A/U connectors.
10base5 is thick coax with vampire taps.
10baseT is Cat5 with RJ-45 connectors.

All of the above are 10Mbit/sec.

100baseT is 100Mbit/sec, and uses Cat5 with RJ-45 connectors; there
are no coax versions.

On Fri, 29 May 2009 18:46:53 +0200, Sjouke Burry
wrote:

flipper wrote:
On Thu, 28 May 2009 17:58:18 -0700, FatBytestard
wrote:

On Tue, 26 May 2009 13:24:28 -0500, flipper wrote:

No, you said coax Ethernet "topped out at 2Mb/s." 10base2 is (thin)
coax Ethernet running 10Mb/s. As Jasen said, "5 times faster" than
what you said.

10base Ethernet is 10Mb/s whether it's twisted pair (-T) or coax (2 or
5) or fiber (-FL). That's what the "10" means.

Except that the coax implementations were tied to the cards they were
attached to and those were 2Mb/s.

Maybe whatever the heck you had was 2Mb/s but my Ethernet cards were
10Mb/s and I've still got the cards, cable, and T connectors around
here somewhere but it's been so long I don't recall where that 'old
parts' box ended up.

By the time the 10Mb/s stuff hit the
streets, folks were buying twisted pair solutions, and coax was
practically completely abandoned. The card makers stopped putting coax
I/O ports on the cards, and rj45 became all you could get, Ethernet wise.

The 10Mb/s cards with both coax and RJ45 connectors I can still find
because some are in the PCI 'old parts' box.

Coax connectors on the cards ended with 100Mb/s

I still have a 4 computer network running with 10base ethernet on coax,
ending at a NetGear Etherhub, to connect to my router(Speedtouch).

And the speed is 10 Megabyte/sec, or 100Megabit/second, which it
achieves without a problem.


Absolute Bull****.

The interface (Ethernet) is declared in BITS per second, and they were
NOT EVER 100 Mb/s on 10 base T. Not ever at any time.