Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!decwrl!oli-stl!asylum!karl
From: karl@asylum.SF.CA.US (Karl Auerbach)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Thin or Thick
Message-ID: <7296@asylum.SF.CA.US>
Date: 14 Oct 89 00:42:41 GMT
References: <624204828.0.AVL@MATH.AMS.COM>
Reply-To: karl@asylum.UUCP (Karl Auerbach)
Organization: The Asylum; Belmont, CA
Lines: 27

In article <624204828.0.AVL@MATH.AMS.COM> AVL@MATH.AMS.COM (Al Lazzareschi) writes:
>While we are on the subject would someone like to comment on
>the difference between RG58 and RG59 thinwire?

I was one of the folks who installed the network at Interop last week.
We had lots of thick, thin, and this year, unshielded twisted pair
(not to mention non-ethers such as fddi, IBM type 1 [for token ring],
etc).

Clearly, thin ether is easier to handle than thick, but its run length
is more limited.  It's a mild pain to attach end-connectors on either
type, but you need more of 'em on cheapernet (thin).  I've never had
noise problems with either, but I've had more shorts with thin than
with thick.  

But compared to thin and thick -- twisted pair is wonderful -- once
you get the connectors right.  Modular jacks don't fall out like those
hideous AUI connectors [even when the slide locks work], a mere mortal
can carry the wire, and you don't have to be a Vanderbilt to pay for
it.  You *do* end up with a star (or star of star, or spine and ribs)
shaped network, with sometimes more total cable.  But with the right
kind of wiring discipline (using all those things that the phone
companies invented when they were in the telephone business -- like
punch down blocks and wire closets) twisted pair can make life much
easier and potentially less expensive.

				--karl--