John E. Perry wrote:
James Knott wrote:
G T Smith wrote:
John E. Perry wrote:
Russell Jones wrote:
...
Disagree. For 100Mbps, just get Cat. 5. It'll work fine. Spend your
pennies on something else.
Same here. I have my home network connected with cat-5E (
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
The Thursday 2007-06-07 at 10:07 +0100, G T Smith wrote:
> If I remember correctly shielding is a two way thing, basically you are
> running a potential 40ft radio aerial in the latter case.
No.
That's because you are supposed to ground the shield
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
James Knott wrote:
> John Andersen wrote:
>> On Thursday 07 June 2007, James Knott wrote:
>>
If I remember correctly shielding is a two way thing, basically you are
running a potential 40ft radio aerial in the latter case. If you have a
John Andersen wrote:
> On Thursday 07 June 2007, James Knott wrote:
>
>>> If I remember correctly shielding is a two way thing, basically you are
>>> running a potential 40ft radio aerial in the latter case. If you have a
>>> lot of cables or have anything which is sensitive to radio emissions
>
James Knott wrote:
> G T Smith wrote:
>> John E. Perry wrote:
>>> Russell Jones wrote:
...
Disagree. For 100Mbps, just get Cat. 5. It'll work fine. Spend your
pennies on something else.
>>> Same here. I have my home network connected with cat-5E (only a little
>>> more costly t
On Thursday 07 June 2007, James Knott wrote:
> > If I remember correctly shielding is a two way thing, basically you are
> > running a potential 40ft radio aerial in the latter case. If you have a
> > lot of cables or have anything which is sensitive to radio emissions
> > close by, Cat 6 starts ma
G T Smith wrote:
> John E. Perry wrote:
> > Russell Jones wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Disagree. For 100Mbps, just get Cat. 5. It'll work fine. Spend your
> >> pennies on something else.
> >>
> > Same here. I have my home network connected with cat-5E (only a little
> > more costly than cat-5 when I bough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John E. Perry wrote:
> Russell Jones wrote:
>> ...
>> Disagree. For 100Mbps, just get Cat. 5. It'll work fine. Spend your
>> pennies on something else.
>>
>
> Same here. I have my home network connected with cat-5E (only a little
> more costly than c
Russell Jones wrote:
> ...
> Disagree. For 100Mbps, just get Cat. 5. It'll work fine. Spend your
> pennies on something else.
>
Same here. I have my home network connected with cat-5E (only a little
more costly than cat-5 when I bought it, and it runs 100Mbps just fine
-- even over the 40 ft to
M Harris wrote:
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 12:53, Sunny wrote:
I had problems with a netwrok card, which could not negotiate
correctly 100 mbps speed because of faulty cable, and I could make it
run on 10 mbps, until I found out that the problem is with the cable,
and I need to replace it.
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 12:53, Sunny wrote:
> I had problems with a netwrok card, which could not negotiate
> correctly 100 mbps speed because of faulty cable, and I could make it
> run on 10 mbps, until I found out that the problem is with the cable,
> and I need to replace it.
I had the s
On Tue June 5 2007 11:57, James D. Parra wrote:
> > From Yast, assign this card a static IP address. Let's see if there
> > is a driver issue with this card in Linux. Since this is a dual
> > boot machine and it works in windows, giving the NIC a static IP
> > will be a good test to see the card ca
On Tue June 5 2007 10:13, James D. Parra wrote:
> On Tue June 5 2007 07:33, Rainer Brinkmann wrote:
> > Perhaps the cable dropped down.
>
>
> ...when I reboot
> into Windows the DHCP servers hands out the usual IP address
> immediately. It is only in Linux, after it worked with this network
> card
On 6/5/07, Carlos F Lange <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I did that. I just assigned the usual IP number in Yast (along with
subnet mask and gateway), but I still cannot ping the gateway or other
machines in the LAN, nor is it seen by them.
Check if you have installed netdiag package. It contains
On Tue June 5 2007 10:13, James D. Parra wrote:
> On Tue June 5 2007 07:33, Rainer Brinkmann wrote:
> > Perhaps the cable dropped down.
>
>
> ...when I reboot
> into Windows the DHCP servers hands out the usual IP address
> immediately. It is only in Linux, after it worked with this network
> card
On Tue June 5 2007 07:33, Rainer Brinkmann wrote:
> Perhaps the cable dropped down.
...when I reboot
into Windows the DHCP servers hands out the usual IP address
immediately. It is only in Linux, after it worked with this network
card for 2 days, that the problem happens. There is no error mes
16 matches
Mail list logo
