100vg kicks ass. Totally collision free vs collision-resend 10/100BaseT(x), which yields a minimum net effective transmit/receive speed of 98mps, and the loss is only due to processor overhead, not to collision detect-resend issues. Up to 200 meters Cat5 between 5 devices vs 100m total distance max between 10/100BaseT(x) devices, up to 7.2km between devices with Fiber-Optic devices, up to 5 layers depth with devices. But, it did not last long enough to get into gigabit speeds. Had it done so it would have smoked current gigabit technology. Then again, using today's Ethernet switches does get us some nice speed finally. Collisions are better managed as opposed to earlier switches, much less older Ethernet hubs (yuck!).
It is what it is, and after many years of holding onto 100vg NICs and equipment I did purchase a set of gigabit switches a few months ago. My newest set of Servers and PCs have come with gigabit interfaces, so I am starting to plug them into gigabit switches. I am still bridging the gigabit switches into the 100vg backbone, as I have the equipment to bridge between the two technologies seamlessly. But the day is coming where I will be totally gigabit. I fought this battle long enough, and 100vg served me well. But gigabit has finally come into mainstream Techie Land deeply enough to where I can no longer ignore it. Shame. But think of all the tax write-off $$$ I am going to get for "scrapping" the outdated 100vg equipment I have on hand! Heh-heh, a real convenient way to get my Inventory balance $$$ stabilized after years of swings at beginning/end of year... In fact, it ought to get my inventory to $0, as it is all I have kept on hand anyway. IMHO HP really dorked the 100vg marketing by ignoring the concerns being voiced by a group they deemed to be nay-sayers. A lot of buildings in corporate USA had been wired in the early-mid 90s for 10BaseT, often as an upgrade from coaxial LAN cabling already. 10BaseT only requires 4 wires in its Cat3/5 cable (2 pairs). So 4 wires would be used for LAN, and that left 4 left over wires to use for Telco units. 100BaseT also uses 4 wires, the same 4 as 10BaseT. So an upgrade to 100BaseTx, assuming one had Cat5 in place, was a no-brainer. Just use the same cabling... 100VG was technically superior to 100BaseTx, and it was easy to prove. Nobody refuted that, but 100vg required all 8 wires in a Cat5 cable. On the surface it seemed using all 8 Cat5 cable wires for the LAN would mean all these building would have to be recabled for the Telco equipment, right? Wrong, not if one used technology to resolve the apparent issue. That "You have to recable everything for 100vg" was the FUD being tossed around by the 100BaseTx camp. HP felt it was no big deal, and pointed out the signal frequency difference between Telco signals and 100vg signals was quite different, and the Cat5 cable could be used to handle both with the proper frequency splitter from a company called Global Electronics. Did HP bother to include those frequency splitting devices, much less an explanation of what the furor was really all about, in their packaging? No. They depended on their hapless sales reps to fight that battle, and worse yet HP offered both 100BaseTx and 100vg. So at the first hint of resistance their Sales Reps folded and put their customers into the inferior 100BaseTx technology to keep from introducing an objection that could cost them a deal at all. And so down went 100vg, right over the edge because HP incorrectly assumed the IT world would understand what signal splitting was, as well as executive managers who were being hit left and right by the 100BaseTx folks (including HP's own more ignorant and/or self-serving Sales Reps) spouting off about the need to recable everything for 100vg. Idiots! Gil > -----Original Message----- > From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com [mailto:profoxtech- > boun...@leafe.com] On Behalf Of Michael Madigan > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 4:24 PM > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > Subject: RE: [NF] How my brain kept me from co-founding YouTube > > > I wasn't even aware of 100VG > > http://www.io.com/~richardr/vg/ > > > --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Gil Hale RR <mrgmh...@rochester.rr.com> wrote: > > > From: Gil Hale RR <mrgmh...@rochester.rr.com> > > Subject: RE: [NF] How my brain kept me from co-founding YouTube > > To: profox@leafe.com > > Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 4:18 PM > > I have hated seeing superior > > marketing of inferior products out-perform > > vastly superior technology that was poorly marketed - often > > despite pricing > > variances. In fact, in some cases the higher priced > > product/service was > > more costly than the technically superior > > competition. Beta Max vs VHS, > > 100BaseTx vs 100vg, arguably the Blue-Ray debacle, Access > > vs VFP, DR DOS vs > > MS DOS, Warp O/S vs Windows, Linux vs Windows, Mac vs > > Windows, Windows vs > > Windows (Vista vs 2000/XP, ME vs Win98 <g>), Windows > > Server 2003 vs Windows > > 2000 (again, arguably). Oh well, it is what it > > is. I am still using 100vg > > as my primary LAN backbone, as are several clients who > > invested in it back > > before it was killed off by HP due to poor market > > performance. 100BaseTx > > does not stand a chance against its performance, but > > gigabit Ethernet does > > in all fairness. It just took about a decade to get > > it into a cost > > effective range. And 100vg still has several > > advantages even of gigabit > > Ethernet. But, alas, for the most you can only get > > 100vg from eBay, and > > from me! And XP did not include native drivers for > > 100vg NICs, although > > 2000 Pro drivers worked fine. Vista handles them > > fine, but I bet Win 8 is > > the last stop for 100vg drivers. BTW, Linux has > > drivers for 100vg still > > <g>... > > > > Gil > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: profoxtech-boun...@leafe.com > > [mailto:profoxtech- > > > boun...@leafe.com] > > On Behalf Of MB Software Solutions General Account > > > Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 3:05 PM > > > To: profoxt...@leafe.com > > > Subject: Re: [NF] How my brain kept me from > > co-founding YouTube > > > > > > Michael Madigan wrote: > > > > <snipped> I didn't see how such a poor > > product could earn money. LOL > > > > > > > > > > > > It's all about the marketing!! Vastly superior > > products have fallen by > > > the wayside because the 800 pound gorilla did a much > > better job at > > > marketing its products. > > > > > > > > > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/00a101c9b954$5a8978c0$0f9c6a...@rr.com ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
