Why do we have cross-over cables.

[snip]

Maybe it would be easier to explain to Sylvia that the reason we have cross-over cables is because cross-under cables are too expensive to build.

Sno-o-o-o-ort ;-)

...Jim Thompson

-- | James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at

| 1962 | It's what you learn, after you know it all, that counts.

In article , snipped-for-privacy@example.net says...>

No, that somebody invented the "null modem" (cable). It took them until the invention of the Ethernet to invent the "crossover cable". ;-)

MultiNym already covered that!

-- Virg Wall, PE

situation.

--
It\'s pretty much like calling someone on the phone. 

You\'re familiar with that procedure, aren\'t you?

JF

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

Perhaps the term you were seeking is 'androgynous'.

That person was NOT A. G. Bell, however.

Sure it was, he just wasn't the only one or necessarily the first.

Exactly who invented the telephone first is largely a question of how you define "telephone" and whether or not you want to trust people who might have built such a device but didn't document it for posterity...

Have not seen anything from her today. Perhaps *she* has crossed over.

Wrong. The INVENTOR was Meucci, and that was DECADES before Bell ripped him off. Bell was a thief that had huge research backing.

You're an idiot.

You're a total retard that obviously has ZERO knowledge of the historical facts.

You don't have to tell me. I have known about him for years.

situation.

logical

need

She probably is. And with a small group of callers making a lot of calls to each other it is likely that none of them will ever get through. Everyone will get the engaged signal because the called party is dialing someone else.

He figured in Godfather III ;-)

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
| Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
| Phoenix, Arizona  85048    Skype: Contacts Only  |             |
| Voice:(480)460-2350  Fax: Available upon request |  Brass Rat  |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com |    1962     |
             
 I love to cook with wine     Sometimes I even put it in the food

situation.

--
So you\'re supporting Sylvia\'s position?

JF

situation.

logical

need

Obviously, I think she is right in this sub-thread. I also tend to agree with her original post although others have explained why, historically, a crossover cable was not standard and why there was a distinction between terminal and communication equipment.

The only point I might disagree with her on is the assumption that "this situation persists". Modern interfaces, like USB, use a single pair of wires for communication which avoids the problem.

situation.

logical

need

Remember TCNS? I think it was token ring. It had hubs all over the place.

Thomas Conrad Network Systems.

I remember Tandy's 'Arcnet' at 150kb/s (small 'b'). :-)

A cross-over cable most certainly WAS and IS the standard for attaching two like terminals through this interface (serial)

When will you grasp the concept, dolt?