why is Token ring expensive than ethernet

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

>> Not mentioned in this entire thread was that in the early days when TR
>> and Enet were starting, IBM wasn't concerned with small shops. They
>> were a bother. At about 91 or so when a 10baseT port on a hub got down
>> to $100 a technically adept person could network a few computers and
>> printers on their own. With TR IBM just ignored you. As the mass of
>> small businesses and even departments within larger businesses started
>> buying Enet because they "could" the economics started to swing.
>
>
> No. IBM DID go after smaller shops - that is what the IBM baseband and
> IBM broadband network adapters were for. Not that ayone actually BOUGHT
> them. Small shops at the time did not use ethernet either - THAT was to
> expensive (an ISA 10base2 card would set you back over $750.00, not to
> mention the cost of stringing coax all over) Most small shops (under 100
> or so people) tended to use arcnet, and SMC was the brand of choice.

They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
you went to a reseller. In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
consideration.

IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
lack of buyers.

In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
into the insurance agency market. IBM continually pressed us to switch.
Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
would have cost the users features and productivity.

And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
out by PCs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

David Ross wrote:

>
> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
> you went to a reseller.

Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
at the time)

> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
> consideration.

TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!

Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
They's teach that in all their official certification classes.

>
> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
> lack of buyers.
>
> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
> into the insurance agency market.

Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?

> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>
> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
> out by PCs.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

T. Sean Weintz wrote:

> Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
> ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
> They's teach that in all their official certification classes.

That and larger packets.

> Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>

I used to support Data General, DEC, Prime and Collins. The Collins systems
were actually MIL spec versions of IBM gear, made under license.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

> Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?

Wang. But not the VS stuff. The 2200s. And if you know anything about
those besides they existed, you're a rare person.

IBM was pushing us to use a funky workstation thing that could run up to
5 terminals for the small end, and Series/1 for larger folks. But to
meet some of our communications needs we'd have to dual boot the entire
office on the Series/1s plus the software on those would not be
compatible with the lower end workstations. Can you imagine a store
having to reboot and take down the cash registers to get an inventory
update? 20 times a day? We'd have never made back our investment, much
less ever make any money. These guys were used to selling into
departments or the IT staff of outfits like Travelers, Aetna, etc...
where the corporate budget covered the expense "for the greater good".
They just didn't know how to deal with a competitive environment.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>David Ross wrote:
>
>>
>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>> you went to a reseller.
>
>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>at the time)
>
>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>> consideration.
>
>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>
>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>



Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
unmanagable by IBM standards.




>>
>> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
>> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
>> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
>> lack of buyers.
>>
>> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
>> into the insurance agency market.
>
>Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>
>> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
>> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
>> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
>> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
>> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
>> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
>> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>>
>> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
>> out by PCs.


--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
> T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>>David Ross wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>>> you went to a reseller.
>>
>>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>>at the time)
>>
>>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>>> consideration.
>>
>>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>>
>>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>>
>
>
>
> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running Ethernet
needed and couldn't afford 🙁

>>> IMHO TR and micro channel were the last of the major attempts at IBM to
>>> do things the "old" way. We IBM sold their network division to Cisco
>>> about 10 years ago, TR went to life support. And MC just died off from
>>> lack of buyers.
>>>
>>> In the 80s I was with a small software company. We sold mini-computers
>>> into the insurance agency market.
>>
>>Just outta curiousity, what brand mini's? Dec? Prime? Wang?
>>
>>> IBM continually pressed us to switch.
>>> Along with our corporate partners. But the net of any switch would have
>>> been to double our net installed price into the offices where we were
>>> selling. And IBM just couldn't understand why that was a problem. In
>>> their opinion their name would have justified the price! And this
>>> doesn't even deal with the issue that switching to the IBM solutions
>>> would have cost the users features and productivity.
>>>
>>> And yes, the systems and company where I worked went away also. Taken
>>> out by PCs.
>
>

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <cuvp0l1210h@news1.newsguy.com>,
J. Clarke <jclarke@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> In article <1114r9nd1oblq3f@news.supernews.com>,
>> T. Sean Weintz <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote:
>>>David Ross wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They may have had products but they wouldn't talk to you about it unless
>>>> you went to a reseller.
>>>
>>>Yes. And they really did not give the resellers ample training to
>>>support the stuff (I know firsthand, since I worked for an IBM reseller
>>>at the time)
>>>
>>>> In thinking back, about 92 to 94 I started
>>>> putting Enet into location with 2 to 10 computers and TR wasn't even a
>>>> consideration.
>>>
>>>TR was still around in force then. Madge was makeing most of the boards
>>>being installed at the time, and they sold pretty well. 92-94 - Chemical
>>>Bank (which later absorbed Chase Manhattan bank and took it's name was
>>>nearly 100% token ring (they strated replacing it around 95 or so) It's
>>>STILL around to this day, but only as legacy. A world famous hospital
>>>down the street from me still uses PS/2 micrchannel boxes running 3270
>>>emulation over 4mbps token on type1 cable!
>>>
>>>Novell used to SWEAR token ring at 16mbps was faster than shared
>>>ethernet at 100mbps because collisions would slow the ethernet down.
>>>They's teach that in all their official certification classes.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
>> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
>> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
>> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
>> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
>> unmanagable by IBM standards.
>
>Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running Ethernet
>needed and couldn't afford 🙁
>


I still have the Fluke TDR that I talked my boss into buying when we
picked up responsibility for support of a small business that had a
ThinWire LAN that been installed by a TV cable installer that used
push-on BNC connectors and splices all over the place without using
the crimp ring.

I walked away from a serial line datascope in 1992. ($35,000 suitcase
unit with SNA, Decnet, and TCP protocols because it looked like modems
were dead, and it was _HEAVY_ The web and home internet took off after
that and I could have used it.




--

a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

But the 2 to 50 computer networks could never afford those tools or the
staff to monitor them. And thats the market that fueled the growth of
ethernet while token ring was growing only at the rate of installed IBM
terminals and PCs pretending to be 327x and such terminals.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:
> Big IBM shops used SNA and could diagnose anything, anywhere remotely
> before 1990. For a large company that's important. ThinWIre was
> certainly horrible as an infrastructure cabling scheme. There was good
> reason to avoid ethernet to the desktop until UTP and managed hubs
> came in. When I left the IBM/SNA world in 1993 ethernet was
> unmanagable by IBM standards.

Very true. Even today, we are talking about "how do we show true end
to end user experience..."


--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:
> Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running
> Ethernet needed and couldn't afford 🙁

So everyone carried a terminator in their tool box! Binary search
works pretty well


--

hsb


"Somehow I imagined this experience would be more rewarding" Calvin
**************************ROT13 MY ADDRESS*************************
Due to the volume of email that I receive, I may not not be able to
reply to emails sent to my account. Please post a followup instead.
********************************************************************

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Hansang Bae wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Back then a cable scanner was the one tool that everybody running
>> Ethernet needed and couldn't afford 🙁
>
> So everyone carried a terminator in their tool box! Binary search
> works pretty well

There was one network that was having intermittent problems that I couldn't
figure out. Finally broke down and bought a TDR. Took me about ten
minutes to find that it was configured as a star of buses with three
terminators and a tee connecter where a repeater belonged (the repeater was
sitting there but somebody had decided to replace it with a tee connector).
If I hadn't gone after it with the TDR I'd have never found either
though--you had to _know_ that there was something there before you'd do
enough digging to actually find it--it was well-hidden.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

"CJ" <chrisj@illicom.net> wrote in message
news:SbxLd.326$Sd.63100@newshog.newsread.com...
> "sharkie" <itsharkopath@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:105ab9cd.0409170801.5201d392@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am new to networks. I have read that Token rings are more
>> expensive than ethernet. They seems to be using same amount of
>> cabling, don't they ?, is it expensive to build the NICs for Token
>> ring ?, is it management cost that is higher in the case of Token ring
>> ?
>> Can anyone explain me why ?
>> Can you also tell by what % are Token rings expensive than ethernet in
>> a typical network with 100 nodes.
>>
>> -shar
>
> I can't tell you why, except to say that why would it matter? Why would
> anyone want Token ring in the first place with the scalability and speeds
> of ethernet?
>

Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
done sending.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Sean Pinegar wrote:

(snip)

> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
> the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
> can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
> done sending.

Well, token passing does take some time, especially on a
large ring. TR does have an advantage in that arbitration
time increases as the ring gets bigger, without a fixed
maximum round trip time.

Ethernet arbitration (collision resolution) is fairly
fast, especially on a small (in distance) network.

TR hardware, especially including the logic to regenerate
lost tokens, is significantly more complex. With enough
economy of scale more complex isn't always bad, but TR has
not done as well in economy of scale as ethernet.

Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <w9bIe.7$KX4.2@okepread05>,
Sean Pinegar <sean.pinegar@cox.net> wrote:
:Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
:the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
:can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
:done sending.

I was never a student of Token Ring, but I know that what you are saying
is debatible.

In order to be the transmitter, the host must have received the
Token from downstream. When a host receives the Token and it has
nothing to send, it allows the Token to continue onward, but
if it does have something to send then it grabs the Token, starts
sending, and doesn't emit a Token until afterwards (if I understand
correctly.)

Suppose that A and B are communicating, and that they are adjacent
in the ring and that there are other members of the ring (say C..Z).
'A' transmits, lets go of the token, B grabs the token, replies to A.
Now, B releases the token -- and it has to flow through C, D, E,
all the way to Z before finding its way back to A. During that
time, the only signal on the wires is the token itself.

There are some who would argue that the time during which the token
is in transit is not "usage of the bandwidth that the network
is capable of at all times", and thus that Token Ring does not
allow "100% usage". *Close* to 100%, perhaps, but not 100%.

It depends on what your definition is of "usage of bandwidth"
and of what "the network is capable of".

Keep in mind that CSMA ethernet does not -disallow- complete
occupancy of the wire with a combination of preamble, packets,
and minimal intra-frame gaps (IFG): it just becomes -unlikely- as
the number of devices that want to talk increases. Some would say
that the IFG is wasted bandwidth; others would say that the IFG
is simply a necessary part of "what the network is capable of".

--
"Who Leads?" / "The men who must... driven men, compelled men."
"Freak men."
"You're all freaks, sir. But you always have been freaks.
Life is a freak. That's its hope and glory." -- Alfred Bester, TSMD

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Walter Roberson wrote:

> In article <w9bIe.7$KX4.2@okepread05>,
> Sean Pinegar <sean.pinegar@cox.net> wrote:
> :Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the bandwidth
> :the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that only 1 person
> :can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them untill they are
> :done sending.
>
> I was never a student of Token Ring, but I know that what you are saying
> is debatible.

> In order to be the transmitter, the host must have received the
> Token from downstream. When a host receives the Token and it has
> nothing to send, it allows the Token to continue onward, but
> if it does have something to send then it grabs the Token, starts
> sending, and doesn't emit a Token until afterwards (if I understand
> correctly.)

One result of the above is that it is more fair in letting
all hosts have an equal chance to use the wire. Though it
does that independent of the frame size, so hosts with larger
frames get a larger fraction of the bandwidth.

> Suppose that A and B are communicating, and that they are adjacent
> in the ring and that there are other members of the ring (say C..Z).
> 'A' transmits, lets go of the token, B grabs the token, replies to A.
> Now, B releases the token -- and it has to flow through C, D, E,
> all the way to Z before finding its way back to A. During that
> time, the only signal on the wires is the token itself.

If only one host is transmitting it takes one token round trip
time between frames. That is much less than 100%. If two are
(more usual with ACKs coming back) then it is one round trip
time per pair. Assuming no token loss, that is.

On the other hand, the ethernet capture effect gives more
bandwidth to a host that can keep the wire busy. That may
increase the usage for a situation involving heavy traffic
from a small number of hosts.

> There are some who would argue that the time during which the token
> is in transit is not "usage of the bandwidth that the network
> is capable of at all times", and thus that Token Ring does not
> allow "100% usage". *Close* to 100%, perhaps, but not 100%.

How close will depend on ring size and frame size.

For ethernet, it depends on the (wire) distance between hosts
actually transmitting and frame size. Jumbo frames can
be used to increase the utilization in some cases.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Sean Pinegar wrote:

> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
> bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
> only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
> untill they are done sending.

That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> Sean Pinegar wrote:
>
>> Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
>> bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
>> only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
>> untill they are done sending.
>
> That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.

Further, latency's a bitch.

The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official IBM
Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.

The cost was always due to IBM's license fees and not to anything inherent
in the network. And like everything in the PC market from which IBM
attempted to extract royalties, it failed in the market.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:

>>Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.

> With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
> to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
> work.

If you want some TR parts you can probably find someone giving it
away, though maybe you would pay shipping. Price them on eBay.

Sometimes Fry's has 1000baseT cards for less than $10 now.

I bought a five port 1000baseT switch for $30 from Fry's.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> Sean Pinegar wrote:

>>Token ring networks are expensive but they allow 100% usage of the
>>bandwidth the network is capable of at all times, the reson being that
>>only 1 person can send at a time and the bandwidth is dedicated to them
>>untill they are done sending.

> That advantage disappeared with switches and full duplex ethernet.

Not until flow control. It is too easy to overflow the buffers
in the switch if you run ports at 100%.

Consider a server with a few clients, and each client sends
at 100% to the server. The link to the server is now
at 300%. Oops.

-- glen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

J. Clarke wrote:

> The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official
> IBM Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.

One advantage to some, is that you knew the maximum time a computer had to
wait, before sending. You didn't know, with unswitched ethernet. It also
supports far larger packets than ethernet.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

James Knott wrote:

> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> The main benefit of Token Ring has always been that it was the Official
>> IBM Way, however even IBM has abandoned it.
>
> One advantage to some, is that you knew the maximum time a computer had to
> wait, before sending. You didn't know, with unswitched ethernet. It also
> supports far larger packets than ethernet.

Deterministic degradation, they call it. Arcnet had the same. Arcnet
advocates would tell you that 2.5 Mb/sec Arcnet drastically outperformed 10
Mb/sec Ethernet in LANs with four PCs running Word Perfect due to this.



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

In article <UYSdnZ2dnZ0MuhbrnZ2dncwWbN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@rogers.com>,
James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>
>> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.
>
>With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would have
>to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
>work.



People that run large networks look beyond the $10/nic cost and pay
attention to the ability to manage a network and diagnose and fix
problems.

IMO until managed ethernet UTP hubs came on the market TR had Ethernet
beat hands-down for wiring to the desktop based on MTTR/MTBF. Even
then, the ability for IBM SNA-based managenent to identify faults down
to the desktop and dispatch the right repairman was impressive. A FDDI
ring beat either TR or ethernet for the building backbone.

To this day I'd pick TR over thinwire ethernet for a large business
LAN where MTTR/MTBF and manpower costs were important.

--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.lans.ethernet (More info?)

Al Dykes wrote:

> In article <UYSdnZ2dnZ0MuhbrnZ2dncwWbN-dnZ2dRVn-zJ2dnZ0@rogers.com>,
> James Knott <james.knott@rogers.com> wrote:
>>glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>>
>>> Otherwise, used TR stuff is probably cheaper than used ethernet.
>>
>>With new 100 Mb ethernet NICs running under $10, token ring NICs would
>>have
>>to be much cheaper. You'll also need the MAU (passive hub) to make them
>>work.
>
>
>
> People that run large networks look beyond the $10/nic cost and pay
> attention to the ability to manage a network and diagnose and fix
> problems.
>
> IMO until managed ethernet UTP hubs came on the market TR had Ethernet
> beat hands-down for wiring to the desktop based on MTTR/MTBF. Even
> then, the ability for IBM SNA-based managenent to identify faults down
> to the desktop and dispatch the right repairman was impressive. A FDDI
> ring beat either TR or ethernet for the building backbone.
>
> To this day I'd pick TR over thinwire ethernet for a large business
> LAN where MTTR/MTBF and manpower costs were important.

That's kind of like saying you'd pick a Silver Ghost over a Model T. If
those were the choices then yes, it's the right one if you need
reliability. But if you throw a 2005 Toyota into the mix . . .


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)