Ethernet also got *way* more market traction, because it was
infinitely more survivable.
One of my early jobs was managing a Token Ring network, and we spent our
days running around a 13 floor building, chasing machines where people had
kicked connectors out of walls, just enough to stop data, but not enough to
make the MAU do the self isolation. We had a piece of software called the
Cabletron TR Manager - that monitored the ring for beaconing, and let us
know the upstream node that detected the break. Then we would consult our
*detailed* notes on what cards were installed where, so we could find the
culprit that was broken. Without the notes, we would have had zero chance.
Heady days.
I suggested to the network manager at the time that we could transition
from TR to Ethernet (everything was wired with Cat3 Shielded cable - but he
didn't want to, because "Ethernet had collisions" - that was when I
discovered that everybody has limitations that something breaks their
thinking. After a while I convinced him to transition one of the Cabletron
cards to Ethernet, and do a test on a 32 workstation card - Suffice to say
that those 32 machines never had an issue, and eventually, all 800 machines
across two rings were transitioned to 100Mb Ethernet.
Kindest regards,
Doug Jackson
em: doug(a)doughq.com
ph: 0414 986878
On Thu, 16 Oct 2025 at 09:12, Wayne S via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
Dec was smart about not having single sourced parts.
IBM made their Token Ring chips and therefore controlled the adoption of
parts and network boards for TR. That is one of the reasons Ethernet caught
on while TR did not. I made that argument to management.
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 15, 2025, at 14:37, Warner Losh via cctalk
<cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
wrote:
On Wed, Oct 15, 2025 at 12:47 AM Rob Jarratt via cctalk <
cctalk(a)classiccmp.org> wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Brent Hilpert via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>> Sent: 14 October 2025 23:14
>> To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts (
> cctalk(a)classiccmp.org)
>> <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>> Cc: Brent Hilpert <bhilpert(a)shaw.ca>
>> Subject: [cctalk] Re: Rainbow H7842 PSU
>>
>> On 2025Oct 14,, at 1:42 PM, Rob Jarratt <robert.jarratt(a)ntlworld.com>
> wrote:
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Brent Hilpert via cctalk <cctalk(a)classiccmp.org>
>>>>
>>>> There’s some confusion here somewhere.
>>>> Those input V's would imply the comp. output should be loZ to
>>>> Vsupply– pin, around –12V; not hiZ, +7.5V.
>>>
>>> Oh my! I have clearly got my understanding the wrong way around, not
> sure
>> how I did that because I read the datasheet carefully. Somehow, I got
>> confused. I re-measured and found 1IN+=5.5V, 1IN-=9.4V, Power OK=6.7V,
> but
>> GND (on the 393) is -13V. So as you say Power OK should be -13V and AC
OK
>> H would be asserted. I guess this must
mean that the comparator itself
is
>> faulty. I have some 393s, so I will
replace it and see what happens.
>>
>>
>> I don’t think I’ve ever seen a comparator datasheet that explicitly
laid
> out the
>> input-to-output function - contrast with other device datasheets with
> detailed
>> truth tables galore.
>
> I have a Texas Instruments datasheet that does explain it, but much
> further down in the Application section. I have to say that many
datasheets
> assume you already know an awful lot about
the devices and how they
work,
which is
definitely not the case for someone like me.
TI is one of the worst for this.Especially if the chip implements an
industry standard or is compatible with some other chip. In those cases,
you barely get enough to understand. I've had to many times in the past
hunt down an industry standard or get the datasheet for the part it's
compatible with.
DEC was really paranoid about single sourced parts, so just about
everything is something that's widely used in the industry, and so has
many
suppliers... You might try that if you're
having trouble understanding
the
datasheet for the exact part.
Warner
>>
>> The comp. datasheets always seem to assume “everybody knows that”. You
>> can figure it out if you look at some of the example circuits or squint
> closely at
>> just the right parameters in the specs and graphs or trace the
operation
>> through the internal schematic if
present.
>>
>> In the absence of that, a lot of people seem to (wrongly) assume that
> “well, +
>>> – would be 1, so transistor ON”.
>>
>> The other way of looking at it, is it’s the 'same direction' of
> behaviour as an op
>> amp, but without the upper drive-high output transistor.
>
>
>