|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 24 2013 @ 11:03 PM EDT |
Ahh, thick net, now that was fun ;)
Tufty
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: squib on Saturday, May 25 2013 @ 09:37 AM EDT |
You may be right on 30 ft but my recollection of an augment in the 1980's was .
“You can't situate this workstation here because you're over 15 feet away!” My
reply : “But I have and it is working perfectly” Their reply: “but it won't
work over more than 15 feet!” My reply : “But I have and it is working
perfectly” . Their reply: “the cables have inductance and capacitance,
therefore the signals (?) shouldn't go that far!” My reply : “They apparently
do and so my workstation is working perfectly” . Their reply: BUT it can't!! My
reply : “It obviously can.” Their reply: “BUT you’re out side the spec –
terrible things could happen”. My reply : “Like what?”. Their reply: “It will
void our warranty!!!” And so on and so forth, the argument escalated up to the
Executive's office. In those days, we relied on type written memos and the
number of BUT's and !!!!! was illuminating.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 26 2013 @ 07:04 PM EDT |
I had trouble with my boss :-)
I think the office was about 50m long, and our 10-base-2 cable ran down and
back. "We need a bridge!" I shouted (metaphorically) at him as I felt
the cable was getting badly overloaded. "Nonsense", he replied,
"the cable limit is 160m, and we've only got 100".
"But the device limit is 30" I responded. "What device
limit?".
I had the last laugh, though. I got told to connect the MD up to the network,
and as sods law would have it, this was the device that tipped the network over
the edge :-) Cue an order for two bridges, approved *extremely* *rapidly* by my
manager :-)
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
