Well, we could discuss this at long length, but rather than that, let me just ask you these two questions:
When networks started to migrate from 10Mbps to 100Mbps, if cost were the only factor and performance was better, why did everyone rip out their thinnet infrastructure and replace it with cat3/5?
Of course, now they use fiber, but before fiber, on very high performance networks where cost wasn't an issue and if coax was better, why wasn't coax used instead of twisted pair?
No, coax has greater noise immunity, so it supports greater signal bandwidth but for full duplex transmission of high speed digital information it's not better. Better is not just a function of bandwidth - in this case, it depends greatly on how you're using that bandwidth.
All of the houses that I've lived in, built since the early 70's, have had individual lines that run back to a central connection block. Not all were cat5, but none were daisy chained.
How old is the house? It it's not too old, the telephone may be run on cat5. You can actually piggy-back ethernet and telephone on the same cat5 cable. I did that in a couple of rooms in my house and it worked great.
First, to the original question. D-Link makes a product that lets you do this. Not that I'm recommending you buy their product, but they claim that, due to bandwidth limitations, your performance would be lower than 802.11n. Now D-link is doing some signal processing, before the packets hit the wire, so I suspect that trying to run a raw signal over coax will produce less than reliable results.
To all those people recommending using the coax to pull cat5 - that probably won't work. Generally the coax will be stapled or otherwise tied to the studs.
I have observed the opposite. The young 'uns want to go home early so they can party and come in late 'cause they partied last night... And at home, when I'm punching in some extra hours, I only ever see old farts still on-line.
The author's main complaint on the PowerPC was that it was not the ubiquitous Intel... I hardly think that makes it a mistake by Apple. The change to the Intel architecture does seem to have been a good one, but that doesn't make the long time support of the PowerPC was a bad one.
In fact, if Apple would have switched from the 68K architecture to an available Intel architecture at the time, it would have been crippling. There would not have been enough horsepower to support classic emulation. Until the MMX, the Intel architecture's pipelining was just not efficient enough and even then it was marginal. So in terms of performance, the PowerPC architecture was several years ahead of the Intel architecture.
The author's comment about the PowerPC power consumption is mystifying. Compared to the Intel offereings at the time, it was best in class.
Apple's business model seems to be working just fine.
Your suggestion that Steve Jobs used his wealth to obtain a liver through less than ethical means has been thoroughly debunked in the media and through UNOS.
If you want your rants to fall on more sym(pathetic) ears, might I suggest here.
MacOS 9 was trapped by the legacy that was pre-MacOS X. If you're going to fault MacOS9 for being a weak OS for being released in that era, then you really have to slam Win2K, XP, Vista, and Windows7 - all trapped by the legacy that was WindowsNT.
Making a significant change to an OS such as MacOS 9 to MacOS X is a big gamble. You take a chance of completely alienating your loyal fans. Apple took that risk and won, Microsoft on the other hand has not. However, they have a lot more to lose.
First, maybe I need that nerf launcher to do my job... let's call it an oscilloscope and let's say the purpose of my business is to build products that we can sell to customers, but hey I'm sure the customers can wait because my IT department has better things to do...
Thank you IT department for saving me from myself. I really enjoy being treated like a child. Thank God they still support PowerPoint so I can build nice presentations to explain why I couldn't build the product because I couldn't install the tools I need and because it will be 6 months from now before that software makes it onto the approved list, but of course, by then that version will be obsolete so back in the queue for you...
My company sends me to all sorts of places with my laptop and they like it when I take it home and do more work... they must want me to use it. One would think that the wireless networking solution would be... I don't know... compatible with the rest of the world. But hey, at least it works inside the company better than 30% of the time.
My backup runs at 8:30am... well timed IT guys!
You think my IT department grew up? We're still running XP. My browser is IE 6.0.
Maybe they are doing their jobs... at the expense of me doing mine. The difference is, when I do my job the company gets money. When they do theirs, well you get the picture.
Yes, I admit it, I'm a Mac user. Of course, I use Windows, linux, Solaris, HPUX, VMS and a few other OSes you probably never heard of, so I'm a little more cosmopolitan than your average Mac user...
Nice use of sarcasm... but you're missing the points.
First, the ad hoc managed Mac solution was working fine. In fact, most people thought it was working better. However, even if the goal WAS more structured management of computing resources, this could have been achieved at lower cost and higher security if they would have stuck with the Macs.
BTW, I've been somewhat disingenuous. They didn't completely drop support for Macs in the company. Most of the senior managers and a few privileged elite in the company still prefer their Macs and they are equally well (if not better) maintained and as secure as the PCs. It's just that PCs outnumber Macs by about 300 to 1.
Second, the change-over was never about better managed solutions, it was about a team of around 20 people worldwide evolving into a team of nearly 200 over the period of about a year... At the time, IT was experiencing more growth than any other team in the company.
This might have been OK if the users' level of productivity increased or if there was a general perception of better service or if the computers seemed to be more reliable, but none of that held true...
You're right, it's not apples to apples, it's apples to eggplants!
I didn't claim that it was more difficult, I claimed that the IT infrastructure cost was higher. To some degree, I'm sure that was a "manufactured" problem. Our IT department built in constraints to try and protect the computers and networks from malware. These constraints then created hardware and software conflicts. They controlled and regulated what could be installed. Their paranoia - not mine. They managed the wireless connectivity in some peculiar and secretive manner - to this day I can't connect to an external wireless network unless it's unsecured. Backups - on their schedule. Security updates - on their schedule. Software updates - only after they have completed their evaluation and approved. I want to connect up a new piece of hardware. If it's plug and play I'm good to go, but god forbid it doesn't just work, I have to wait weeks for them to get around to looking at my non standard, non approved gadget that won't play nice with some security stuff they have running in the background.
Things are better now, but I'm still not in control of my own destiny.
Just because I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist doesn't mean they're not out to oppress me... [apologies to Joseph Heller]
My company used to be a mostly Mac enterprise. There were a couple of guys who were dedicated Mac support - they spent most of their time evaluating stuff and coordinating roll-outs of hardware and software. Occasionally, they would get involved with really challenging problems.
Most of the Mac administration was performed by Mac power users. People who had real jobs, but volunteered a little extra time to service the needs of their peers. This was all we needed. The average time to resolve an issue was measured in minutes.
We had a dedicated IT staff that supported unix workstations, some uvaxes, some mainframes, and the handfull of scattered PCs that we had for custom stuff not supported on Mac.
Then, almost overnight, everything changed. We switched from being predominantly Mac to being predominantly Wintel. The reason stated was cost, though a later analysis revealed that because we only bought highend PCs, the cost of the hardware was not a significant factor, the cost of the software was higher, productivity dropped off, and the cost of the IT infrastructure to support the PCs was significantly higher. There were other cost factors, as well.
In my opinion, this last aspect is key. The IT people put themselves in control of the hardware/software platform choices and they chose a platform that would require them to hire more people to support and give them even more power...
The reason Apple will never dominate in the enterprise is simple. Apple doesn't cater to the empire builders...
> I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.
No. I don't think you do. The radiation generated by a cell phone is non ionizing, which means it has no measurable or detectable impact to living cells. You are surrounded by non ionizing sources constantly every day. So unless you live in the boondocks and have your shack wrapped in a Farady cage, you're just being hopelessly paranoid. Or unless you're supposing that cell phone radiation is somehow magic and affects your soul... in that case, you might be on to something.
Of course... maybe it's just a form of geek humor. An inside joke. Whenever someone asks "when", they reply "20 years"... and then snicker when you turn your back on them.
Well, 20 years is optimistic, but mostly realistic, as long as we assume that tomorrow we finally figure out one of two things:
How the brain does it...
Another way to do it that is just as effective as the way the brain does it...
Since today we don't have a clue about either...
Well, those AI experts always were an optimistic bunch, since this solution was only 20 years away back in 1965 when Herbert Simon proclaimed it so and Marvin Minsky backed him up...
The operating system performance does have some impact on battery performance and battery life. There are circumstances where the same core running the same speed on the same hardware will consume more power on a Windows OS than another OS...
So, to be clear. I'm not blaming Microsoft, but I'm not ready to let them off the hook.
And... even if their claims that the OS is just reporting the actual state of the battery, that doesn't mean that Microsoft's OS (current or previous) didn't preciptate the situation.
We have a combination printer/fax machine at work. If I put the paper in the hopper and send a fax it comes out in one orientation. If I print-to-fax it comes out in a different orientation. Who's to say which orientations is right-side-up?
It might be a big deal if these faxes were only going to be handled by computers and never looked at by humans... oh wait... I forgot... this is the USPTO!
Multi-core and multi-threading is really the only way to get significant performance increases these days. The days of bigger, faster cores are pretty much done, due to a number of technical issues with chip design and manufacture. Some of the key problems being power distribution, heat, and defectivity.
Slashdot Mirror
No, coax has greater noise immunity, so it supports greater signal bandwidth but for full duplex transmission of high speed digital information it's not better. Better is not just a function of bandwidth - in this case, it depends greatly on how you're using that bandwidth.
All of the houses that I've lived in, built since the early 70's, have had individual lines that run back to a central connection block. Not all were cat5, but none were daisy chained.
The coax used for TV is not the same as the coax used for networking.
Cat5 is both cheaper and better.
How old is the house? It it's not too old, the telephone may be run on cat5. You can actually piggy-back ethernet and telephone on the same cat5 cable. I did that in a couple of rooms in my house and it worked great.
First, to the original question. D-Link makes a product that lets you do this. Not that I'm recommending you buy their product, but they claim that, due to bandwidth limitations, your performance would be lower than 802.11n. Now D-link is doing some signal processing, before the packets hit the wire, so I suspect that trying to run a raw signal over coax will produce less than reliable results.
To all those people recommending using the coax to pull cat5 - that probably won't work. Generally the coax will be stapled or otherwise tied to the studs.
I have observed the opposite. The young 'uns want to go home early so they can party and come in late 'cause they partied last night... And at home, when I'm punching in some extra hours, I only ever see old farts still on-line.
Well, if you think Windows isn't backed into a corner, then I guess you and I have different standards for an operating system.
The author's main complaint on the PowerPC was that it was not the ubiquitous Intel... I hardly think that makes it a mistake by Apple. The change to the Intel architecture does seem to have been a good one, but that doesn't make the long time support of the PowerPC was a bad one.
In fact, if Apple would have switched from the 68K architecture to an available Intel architecture at the time, it would have been crippling. There would not have been enough horsepower to support classic emulation. Until the MMX, the Intel architecture's pipelining was just not efficient enough and even then it was marginal. So in terms of performance, the PowerPC architecture was several years ahead of the Intel architecture.
The author's comment about the PowerPC power consumption is mystifying. Compared to the Intel offereings at the time, it was best in class.
Apple's business model seems to be working just fine.
Your suggestion that Steve Jobs used his wealth to obtain a liver through less than ethical means has been thoroughly debunked in the media and through UNOS.
If you want your rants to fall on more sym(pathetic) ears, might I suggest here.
MacOS 9 was trapped by the legacy that was pre-MacOS X. If you're going to fault MacOS9 for being a weak OS for being released in that era, then you really have to slam Win2K, XP, Vista, and Windows7 - all trapped by the legacy that was WindowsNT.
Making a significant change to an OS such as MacOS 9 to MacOS X is a big gamble. You take a chance of completely alienating your loyal fans. Apple took that risk and won, Microsoft on the other hand has not. However, they have a lot more to lose.
Way off, dude.
First, maybe I need that nerf launcher to do my job... let's call it an oscilloscope and let's say the purpose of my business is to build products that we can sell to customers, but hey I'm sure the customers can wait because my IT department has better things to do...
Thank you IT department for saving me from myself. I really enjoy being treated like a child. Thank God they still support PowerPoint so I can build nice presentations to explain why I couldn't build the product because I couldn't install the tools I need and because it will be 6 months from now before that software makes it onto the approved list, but of course, by then that version will be obsolete so back in the queue for you...
My company sends me to all sorts of places with my laptop and they like it when I take it home and do more work... they must want me to use it. One would think that the wireless networking solution would be... I don't know... compatible with the rest of the world. But hey, at least it works inside the company better than 30% of the time.
My backup runs at 8:30am... well timed IT guys!
You think my IT department grew up? We're still running XP. My browser is IE 6.0.
Maybe they are doing their jobs... at the expense of me doing mine. The difference is, when I do my job the company gets money. When they do theirs, well you get the picture.
Yes, I admit it, I'm a Mac user. Of course, I use Windows, linux, Solaris, HPUX, VMS and a few other OSes you probably never heard of, so I'm a little more cosmopolitan than your average Mac user...
Nice use of sarcasm... but you're missing the points.
First, the ad hoc managed Mac solution was working fine. In fact, most people thought it was working better. However, even if the goal WAS more structured management of computing resources, this could have been achieved at lower cost and higher security if they would have stuck with the Macs.
BTW, I've been somewhat disingenuous. They didn't completely drop support for Macs in the company. Most of the senior managers and a few privileged elite in the company still prefer their Macs and they are equally well (if not better) maintained and as secure as the PCs. It's just that PCs outnumber Macs by about 300 to 1.
Second, the change-over was never about better managed solutions, it was about a team of around 20 people worldwide evolving into a team of nearly 200 over the period of about a year... At the time, IT was experiencing more growth than any other team in the company.
This might have been OK if the users' level of productivity increased or if there was a general perception of better service or if the computers seemed to be more reliable, but none of that held true...
You're right, it's not apples to apples, it's apples to eggplants!
I didn't claim that it was more difficult, I claimed that the IT infrastructure cost was higher. To some degree, I'm sure that was a "manufactured" problem. Our IT department built in constraints to try and protect the computers and networks from malware. These constraints then created hardware and software conflicts. They controlled and regulated what could be installed. Their paranoia - not mine. They managed the wireless connectivity in some peculiar and secretive manner - to this day I can't connect to an external wireless network unless it's unsecured. Backups - on their schedule. Security updates - on their schedule. Software updates - only after they have completed their evaluation and approved. I want to connect up a new piece of hardware. If it's plug and play I'm good to go, but god forbid it doesn't just work, I have to wait weeks for them to get around to looking at my non standard, non approved gadget that won't play nice with some security stuff they have running in the background.
Things are better now, but I'm still not in control of my own destiny.
Just because I'm a crazy conspiracy theorist doesn't mean they're not out to oppress me... [apologies to Joseph Heller]
My company used to be a mostly Mac enterprise. There were a couple of guys who were dedicated Mac support - they spent most of their time evaluating stuff and coordinating roll-outs of hardware and software. Occasionally, they would get involved with really challenging problems.
Most of the Mac administration was performed by Mac power users. People who had real jobs, but volunteered a little extra time to service the needs of their peers. This was all we needed. The average time to resolve an issue was measured in minutes.
We had a dedicated IT staff that supported unix workstations, some uvaxes, some mainframes, and the handfull of scattered PCs that we had for custom stuff not supported on Mac.
Then, almost overnight, everything changed. We switched from being predominantly Mac to being predominantly Wintel. The reason stated was cost, though a later analysis revealed that because we only bought highend PCs, the cost of the hardware was not a significant factor, the cost of the software was higher, productivity dropped off, and the cost of the IT infrastructure to support the PCs was significantly higher. There were other cost factors, as well.
In my opinion, this last aspect is key. The IT people put themselves in control of the hardware/software platform choices and they chose a platform that would require them to hire more people to support and give them even more power...
The reason Apple will never dominate in the enterprise is simple. Apple doesn't cater to the empire builders...
> these records provide only a very general indication of a user's whereabouts
These records provide only a very general indication of a user's cell phone whereabouts...
> I know what such radiation does to a body, short and long term.
No. I don't think you do. The radiation generated by a cell phone is non ionizing, which means it has no measurable or detectable impact to living cells. You are surrounded by non ionizing sources constantly every day. So unless you live in the boondocks and have your shack wrapped in a Farady cage, you're just being hopelessly paranoid. Or unless you're supposing that cell phone radiation is somehow magic and affects your soul... in that case, you might be on to something.
Of course... maybe it's just a form of geek humor. An inside joke. Whenever someone asks "when", they reply "20 years"... and then snicker when you turn your back on them.
Well, 20 years is optimistic, but mostly realistic, as long as we assume that tomorrow we finally figure out one of two things:
Since today we don't have a clue about either...
Well, those AI experts always were an optimistic bunch, since this solution was only 20 years away back in 1965 when Herbert Simon proclaimed it so and Marvin Minsky backed him up...
I started to type something up about my experiences, but then found this which was much better than what I was typing...
http://irwincur.tripod.com/ten_best_obj_-_small_telescope.htm
The operating system performance does have some impact on battery performance and battery life. There are circumstances where the same core running the same speed on the same hardware will consume more power on a Windows OS than another OS...
So, to be clear. I'm not blaming Microsoft, but I'm not ready to let them off the hook.
And... even if their claims that the OS is just reporting the actual state of the battery, that doesn't mean that Microsoft's OS (current or previous) didn't preciptate the situation.
Googol is the name of a number, Google is the name of a company. How could anyone claim that the company misspelled their own name?
We have a combination printer/fax machine at work. If I put the paper in the hopper and send a fax it comes out in one orientation. If I print-to-fax it comes out in a different orientation. Who's to say which orientations is right-side-up?
It might be a big deal if these faxes were only going to be handled by computers and never looked at by humans... oh wait... I forgot... this is the USPTO!
Multi-core and multi-threading is really the only way to get significant performance increases these days. The days of bigger, faster cores are pretty much done, due to a number of technical issues with chip design and manufacture. Some of the key problems being power distribution, heat, and defectivity.
Actually multi-threading...