Hello Fred
On 22-Mar-00, you wrote:
<snip>
>
> It's not clear to me why people continue to include 10Base2 in new
> designs, since there are straightforward solutions to hooking up existing
> 10Base2 hardware, and it's rare for people to build *new* 10Base2 networks
> nowadays. The only reason I can think of is that, given the need to
> charge an arm and a leg for an Amiga board no matter what's on it, they
> decide to give you a little more for the money. :-) I'd gladly give up the
> extra 10Base2 hardware in favor of a second 10BaseT port, thereby freeing
> a valuable slot.
>
I'd like to suggest a reason. There are times when the shield of a coaxial
cable has an advantage, and 10Base2 has a potential cost advantage over
larger coax. My installation is about 1,500 feet from a 60 kw FM station.
There's significant rf all over everything.
Claims have been made for interferring signal rejection for dual rail or
balanced systems, citing common mode voltage rejection capability. That's
true, assuming the common mode voltage isn't too high, or has such a high
frequency that the common mode rejection circuitry can't cancel the
interferrence.
These were battles we fought (and lost) in the mid-1960s. While something
other than coax might work some of the time, I suspect there would be more
packets dropped, and at least some degree of flakey behavior.
My 75 cents worth (inflation). :-)
Regards
--
==========================================
Jim Belcher
BS, MS, A&P/IA and other stuff
A2000/030 communications processor
A4000/060 VLAB/fast-wide SCSI
==========================================
Success is like a fart - only your own smells nice.
-- James P. Hogan
--
To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe miami-talk-ml" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]". For help on list commands send "help" to
"[EMAIL PROTECTED]".
