On Nov 25, 2003, at 01:04 am, Clark Martin wrote:
At 8:09 AM + 11/24/03, Mark Benson wrote:
On Nov 23, 2003, at 11:50 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
And there-in lies the problem. Routers and Bridges are protocol level
dependent and thus will not accept anything they are not set up to
At 7:48 AM + 11/25/03, Mark Benson wrote:
On Nov 25, 2003, at 01:04 am, Clark Martin wrote:
At 8:09 AM + 11/24/03, Mark Benson wrote:
On Nov 23, 2003, at 11:50 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
And there-in lies the problem. Routers and Bridges are protocol
level dependent and thus will
On Nov 23, 2003, at 11:50 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Maybe in theory, but not in practice. The hubs in my office crash
when someone transfers files from or to the fileserver over
appletalk. The hubs can handle AFP over IP alright but as soon as
appletalk turns up its head trouble
--- Mark Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And there-in lies the problem. Routers and Bridges
are protocol level
dependent and thus will not accept anything they are
not set up to
pass. TCP/IP routers that don't support AppleTalk
will reject signals
that are not routable, and may even
He needs to have a chat with the sysadmin and find
out if the switches and routers are the managed
type, which can be configured over the ethernet
cable using a Telnet program or if they're fancy
ones with built in mini web servers, by using a
web browser. There is where the various protocols
On Sat, 2003-11-22 at 22:53, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
AppleTalk and AppleShare IP are in no way the same. Their only
similarity is they are both for the Mac OS and made by Apple.
AppleTalk is slower and uses older routines it is also very
versatile and works over more than one medium (in
At 8:09 AM + 11/24/03, Mark Benson wrote:
On Nov 23, 2003, at 11:50 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
And there-in lies the problem. Routers and Bridges are protocol
level dependent and thus will not accept anything they are not set
up to pass. TCP/IP routers that don't support AppleTalk will
--- dquebbeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I installed PC MacLan on a Win 98 print server so I
could print from my Mac
II to an HP 2100 PS... recently the company leased a
Win2k laptop for me and
I absolutely could not get it to find the HP until I
configured the laptop
to print using
At 12:02 AM +0100 11/23/03, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
AppleTalk is not an inferior protocol at all. It is designed for
simplicity and convenience on a local area network, and does the job
quite well. TCP/IP never matched the convenience of AppleTalk on a LAN
until Apple recently introduced
Maybe in theory, but not in practice. The hubs in my office crash
when someone transfers files from or to the fileserver over
appletalk. The hubs can handle AFP over IP alright but as soon as
appletalk turns up its head trouble starts. Only the printing over
appletalk seems to work just
Maybe in theory, but not in practice. The hubs in my office crash
when someone transfers files from or to the fileserver over
appletalk. The hubs can handle AFP over IP alright but as soon as
appletalk turns up its head trouble starts. Only the printing over
appletalk seems to work just
On Nov 22, 2003, at 06:35 am, Bryan Kattwinkel wrote:
Why should one want to use appletalk when running mac os 8.1 on the
client machine? Appletalk is an inferior protocol that should be
avoided when you have the alternative of IP. The only reason I am
using it is because of my laserwriters being
I installed PC MacLan on a Win 98 print server so I could print from my Mac
II to an HP 2100 PS... recently the company leased a Win2k laptop for me and
I absolutely could not get it to find the HP until I configured the laptop
to print using Appletalk! I mean, Win2k to Win98 to an HP printer
AppleTalk and AppleShare IP are in no way the same. Their only
similarity is they are both for the Mac OS and made by Apple.
AppleTalk is slower and uses older routines it is also very
versatile and works over more than one medium (in other similar
guises such as LocalTalk). AppleShare IP is a
AppleTalk is not an inferior protocol at all. It is designed for
simplicity and convenience on a local area network, and does the job
quite well. TCP/IP never matched the convenience of AppleTalk on a LAN
until Apple recently introduced Rendevous. Modern servers and clients
support AppleShare over
On Nov 22, 2003, at 10:53 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Appletalk is a network protocol and not an application, while
Appleshare IP is an application (server software to be precise) and
not a protocol.
The application Appleshare IP not only handles tcp/ip connections over
ethernet, but also
On Nov 22, 2003, at 11:02 pm, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
AppleTalk is not an inferior protocol at all. It is designed for
simplicity and convenience on a local area network, and does the job
quite well. TCP/IP never matched the convenience of AppleTalk on a LAN
until Apple recently introduced
on 11/21/03 3:30 PM, Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Why should one want to use appletalk when running mac os 8.1 on the
client machine? Appletalk is an inferior protocol that should be
avoided when you have the alternative of IP. The only reason I am
using it is because of my laserwriters being
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount any OS
X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just tells me the
password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure) upgrading to OS X 10.3
that did id, but might maybe 10.3.1? Connecting to both my OS X Boxes
using the
On Nov 20, 2003, at 08:08 am, Mark Benson wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount any
OS X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just tells me
the password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure) upgrading to OS X
10.3 that did id, but might maybe
--- Mark Benson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now
can't mount any OS
X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it
just tells me the
password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure)
upgrading to OS X 10.3
that did id, but might maybe
Mark Benson wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount any OS
X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just tells me the
password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure) upgrading to OS X 10.3
that did id, but might maybe 10.3.1? Connecting to both my OS X
Mark Benson wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount
any OS X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just
tells me the password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure)
upgrading to OS X 10.3 that did id, but might maybe 10.3.1?
Connecting to both my OS
Marten van de Kraats wrote:
Mark Benson wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount any
OS X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just tells me
the password is wrong. It is not (I'm pretty sure) upgrading to OS X
10.3 that did id, but might maybe
Mark Benson wrote:
On Nov 20, 2003, at 08:08 am, Mark Benson wrote:
Having done nothing in particular to my 7100cx I now can't mount any
OS X Based AppleTalk shares that require a password, it just tells me
the password is wrong.
I should just add that I can mount the ~/Public folders on
What version is required to get the ip address button, I have no
need for it and would like to point out that that Mark shouldn't
either. Original where possible on my on topic macs. 3.8.x?
I am not sure about the version. Someting like 3.7.x or 3.8.x...
No one would cry over the loss of dell,
Why should one want to use appletalk when running mac os 8.1 on the
client machine? Appletalk is an inferior protocol that should be
avoided when you have the alternative of IP. The only reason I am
using it is because of my laserwriters being appletalk only and my
personal server (fanless LC
27 matches
Mail list logo
