Xref: utzoo comp.dcom.lans:7780 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:15675
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!msi.umn.edu!noc.MR.NET!jhereg!andrew
From: andrew@jhereg.osa.com (Andrew C. Esh)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: 10baseT Installation costs
Message-ID: <1991Apr15.205651.8938@jhereg.osa.com>
Date: 15 Apr 91 20:56:51 GMT
References: <1991Apr6.011139.1572@netcom.COM> <40993@cup.portal.com> <41255@cup.portal.com>
Organization: Open Systems Architects, Inc., Mpls, MN
Lines: 20

In article <41255@cup.portal.com> PLS@cup.portal.com (Paul L Schauble) writes:
>I think I missed the beginning of this discussion....
>
>When you say 10BaseT is cheaper, what are you comparing it to?
>
>    ++PLS

To this point, the main contender has been ThinNet (RG58 Coax), since it
does not require a Hub. I think 10baseT is better because it is physically
more reliable, and easier to connectorize and maintain. The wire is
cheaper, too.

Hey folks, I've noticed hubs are getting down in the $50/port range. Where
does that put us with this discussion? Are you ThinNet types gonna go away
and cry in your cornflakes yet? :-) (Just kidding, I like ThinNet too.)
-- 
Andrew C. Esh			andrew@osa.com
Open Systems Architects, Inc.
Mpls, MN 55416-1528		Punch down, turn around, do a little crimpin'
(612) 525-0000			Punch down, turn around, plug it in and go ...