?

Log in

No account? Create an account
I hate USB. I like gigabit ethernet. That will be all. - The Veritable TechNinja [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
The Veritable TechNinja

[ website | ~/public_html ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

[Feb. 26th, 2003|04:54 pm]
The Veritable TechNinja
[status |frustratedfrustrated]

I hate USB. I like gigabit ethernet. That will be all.
linkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: nephilimnexus
2003-02-26 09:13 pm (UTC)
I poor

=(
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: itszer0
2003-03-25 02:35 am (UTC)
Paired gige is a bitch, but if you were mocking fiber, i'd have to kill you... nothing personal of course.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcsine
2003-03-25 09:18 am (UTC)
Paired gig? Are you talking about 1000base-TX, as in twisted pair copper? And who are you?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: itszer0
2003-03-25 11:05 am (UTC)
yeah, paired== twisted pair..

just stubled on your journal through a community, though i forget which one now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcsine
2003-03-25 12:40 pm (UTC)
What's so bad about 1000bT? Other than the hardware being proposterously expensive, that is. It's backwards compatible, runs over the same in-wall (most of the time), uses the same topology, NICs are generally well supported, most of the switches come with expansion slots for backbone cards...

It was the michigan community.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: itszer0
2003-03-25 06:46 pm (UTC)
1000BT isint total shit, its just they try to market it to end users now....
some of the new dell's (at least that we get at our work) come with intigrated intel 10/100/1000BTX Cards, totally un-neccisary, that and the fact these were made to have wireless anyways (ala cisco aeronet card)... but.. thats my random bitching...


with fiber, at least the people that have/use it, generally have a clue of what it is ;)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcsine
2003-03-26 05:41 am (UTC)
Yeah, I'm on one of those desktops right now. With the retarded, backwoods network layout around here, we need all the bandwidth we can get client-side. Small building, maybe 200 seats. We're all on one big cascaded switch, which ony has a single 100bTX line to the server, and only one 100bFX to the router, and thus the WAN. I'm telling you, at least gig ethernet would help for the server, which also has an unused gig NIC... One little adapter card for the router, that's all it would take... But hey, in the mean time, these Intel chipsets are performing better at 100 than the old 3c920s did...
Seriously, though, you'd rather have noisy, unstable, insecure wireless over gigabit in-wall?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: itszer0
2003-03-27 01:17 am (UTC)
One word: Harsh

and no, i'd rather have gigabit, or hell, even 10BT HDX in wall, then wireless, specially for the application (heh, and the fact that there still running 10BT HDX switches at my work)... but you see, i have no call over this situation, i am just a lonely pidgon at a retail operation, not someone who matters...


i tried to explain to them once the importants of 100BT FDX vs 10BT HDX in setting up our desktop machine to our Firey (for color laser printer) ... and they refused to acnowlage that there would be a speed difference, when transfering some times 400+MB PS files...


they (even Xerox rep) says 'there would be no speed difference...

So our diagram right now, calls for the packets from our DTP machine to run from it, to a 10BT HDX hub on the kiddy corner side of the store, to another port in it, all the way back to a 100BTX Mini-switch, to our copy machines, assinine? fuck yes.

the wireless application is because they would rather use wireless then setup a usefull ethernet drop to 3 machines.
the bad part, 2 of those machines you can order stuff on via CC
the worse part, is no WEP.


...that is all ...end my fucking rant :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcsine
2003-03-27 06:15 am (UTC)
Hey, at least you've got a Fiery... All we've got is an old-ass Tektronix. Well, we technically have two, but we don't want to spend $350 to replace the busted NIC. Although, I guess I shouldn't bring up our dual P4-Xeon server with 4 gigs of RAM and the 460 gig fiberchannel RAID array... Or the 20-tape Ultrium loader... Or the Catalyst 6500...
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: itszer0
2003-03-27 07:30 am (UTC)
well we *need* the firey...

servers? hrm, while i havent actually seen ours, i know we have a few solaris boxen (2.3) laying around
and we have a Unisys server, although i forget revision of os (gah) which ive been on the console...

i cant really 'play' on our network, unless i feel like losing my job thouhg ;P

and with your company, you guys need the hardware, we really dont.

i have better servers then ours in my living room :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: arcsine
2003-03-27 09:07 am (UTC)
Unisys servers from that day (if it was installed at the same time as Solaris 2.3 was, 1993 or so) probably run OS400 or MVS/ESA. It sounds like you work at a copy shop or graphic design place. Your place probably needs the kind of storage and printer spooling muscle that we've got more than we do.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)