Why do we have cross-over cables. - Page 7

Do you have a question? Post it now! No Registration Necessary

Translate This Thread From English to

Threaded View
Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Jeroen Belleman wrote:.
Quoted text here. Click to load it


   No, because it was designed to work, and meet the requirements at the
time.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

Goggle Groups, and Web TV users must request to be white listed, or I
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Of course it works. That's not the point. The question was about
why we don't come up with an interconnect that doesn't require
cross-over cables. It's so nice, so simple.

As for requirements; We all know that 'requirements' are really
a mere description of the way the prototype behaved the day we
got it to work. ;-)

Jeroen Belleman
(Standards are merely intended to cripple competition.)

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:46:54 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  I'll bet that it has to do with the speed of the wire limitations at
the time.

  This is a question for Floyd Davidson.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

No. The original post asked why we don't have an interconnect that
_only_ uses cross-over cables. The question has been answered on both
the historical basis of a clear distinction between "transmitting" and
"receiving" equipment and ease of manufacture of straight through
cables.

The modern trend has been to use a bidirectional interface such as USB
but this is necessarily slower than a similar interface using three
wires instead of two and a cross-over cable. Nobody has actually
answered the question in the current context.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Ah yes, that was indeed the question.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

I suppose you are thinking of half-duplex traffic.  It's quite
possible to have full-duplex traffic on a single pair of wires.
There would then be no speed penalty.

Jeroen Belleman

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:41:26 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Quoted text here. Click to load it


 Actually, there WOULD then be a speed issue.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

Oh, that's very helpful.
Would you mind motivating that statement just a little?

Jeroen Belleman

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 14:14:31 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 Consider the speed limitations of such a system.

  Even fiber optic transmission (transception<sic>)has two paths.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:04:44 -0700, Capt. Cave Man

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Just because you have not seen bidirectional full duplex on a single
fiber does not mean that it cannot exist.  I have used such devices.
They typically use wavelength division multiplexing.
  .

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

---
Nothing new there, it's the same as frequency division multiplexing.

The point is, though, for a medium of propagation with a finite
We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:47:43 -0500, John Fields

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  A San Diego company just recently got 'near wire speed' (unheard of) on
the new 10Gb/s standards being developed.

 They got 8.5Gb/s out of it.  That is better than anything current. Most
of the current stuff has far too much overhead.  We are lucky if Gigabit
Ethernet can push 600Mb/s on a good day.

 They did it with a Cell Broadband Engine CPU.

  There will be Cell processors in our future.

 Hell, if we make it past 12-20-2012 things will actually look good.

  Maybe we'll close off the borders and kick some illegal immigrant
asses, and then clean up the gang problems too!

 Maybe the horses will ride after all!

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it


  EHHHH!  Wrong ASSumption AGAIN, dumbfuckKK!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

 I NEVER once said that it didn't or couldn't, you RETARDED, PRESUMPTUOUS
FUCK!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  Good for you, idiot.  The remark was about what is in place and in use
NOW!

Quoted text here. Click to load it

  No shit.  I knew what OC-96 was before you even knew what an optical
fiber was.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

RS485?

Quoted text here. Click to load it

RS232 was the solution to a different problem (how to conect modems to
terminals)


Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
On Thu, 12 Mar 2009 10:54:59 +1100, Sylvia Else

Quoted text here. Click to load it

---
The answer to your question was posted in the question I posed, which
you snipped.

We've slightly trimmed the long signature. Click to see the full one.
Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.
Quoted text here. Click to load it

The world would be better with more hermaphroditic connectors.




Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it
  Perhaps the term you were seeking is 'androgynous'.

Re: Why do we have cross-over cables.

Quoted text here. Click to load it

Well, the jargon might have changed, but there are still two of them,
otherwise we would all die off.

Site Timeline