Apple's AirPort grabs 10.6% share of 802.11N WiFi market

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Macs were the first consumer computers to be networked, with Localtalk, way back when. MS only began that move in the 1991 timeframe. Apple failed to use that advantage, even as they added Ethernet to their machines, by stubbornly remaining dependent on the hub/switch/router manufacturers. I was often frustrated by that.



    Just a minor point: The first computer network was installed in June 1980 at Saratoga High School, Saratoga, CA. The network consisted of 7 Apple][ computers sharing a 5 MB (that's right 5 megabyte) hard drive using a Corvus Network. This was years before LocalTalk on the Mac.



    The Corvus system was also able to network computers of different manufacturers on a single network-- e.g., Apple][, Apple///, TRS80, S100 bus machines like Northstar, and IBM/PC
  • Reply 22 of 44
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ajmas View Post


    While the Airport Extreme might appear to be expensive, the price is not that out of whack when compared to other routers that support Gigabit ethernet.



    The Apple advantage is providing good or great hardware, with a best-in-class user experience.

    I think they could do better with networking.



    Networking is really hard for the average consumer. Even grizzled industry veterans are caught out by firewalls, port-forwarding, DNS server addresses and NAT.



    Imagine a network-designer application, which allowed users to layout and configure a network with drag and drop ease. It could really help Apple shift more product especially if ran on PC.



    C.
  • Reply 23 of 44
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by reidconti View Post


    Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself. I once had an Airport Base Station (snow, not graphite, so the second model they made) and it worked okay, but wasn't worth the price premium. Some of the cheapo ones have occasionally had problems where they need to be restarted on a regular basis, so you toss it in the trash and buy a different $50 model that'll actually work well.



    Pretty much my take, not to mention 802.11N still hasn't been finalized.



    I already have a network printer at home, and if I wanted to add a HD, I would probably go with the HP Media Vault mv2120 NAS server, which is similar to their WHS device, but runs Linux, and costs half as much.



    Setting up routers just isn't that hard, Netgear has a great walk through for newbies, and it can automatically update itself when you log into it. On the downside, I've read that Netgear support is useless.



    I use Linksys 802.11b (setup as an AP) and a Netgear Draft N routers, and they haven't given me any problems. Comcast on the other hand...
  • Reply 24 of 44
    solipsismsolipsism Posts: 25,726member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by guinness View Post


    Pretty much my take, not to mention 802.11N still hasn't been finalized.



    I already have a network printer at home, and if I wanted to add a HD, I would probably go with the HP Media Vault mv2120 NAS server, which is similar to their WHS device, but runs Linux, and costs half as much.



    Setting up routers just isn't that hard, Netgear has a great walk through for newbies, and it can automatically update itself when you log into it. On the downside, I've read that Netgear support is useless.



    I use Linksys 802.11b (setup as an AP) and a Netgear Draft N routers, and they haven't given me any problems. Comcast on the other hand...



    If all you need it an 802.11b/g router then the choices available for $50 are fine. Over the years the premium of the AEBS has dwindled. Now it's very competitive if you are looking for an 802.11n device with Gigabit ethernet, a built in file and print serving.
  • Reply 25 of 44
    obiwanobiwan Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by reidconti View Post


    Quite frankly, this blows my mind. I don't know anyone who owns one. Everyone I know uses cheapo Linksys and Netgear routers for their Macs, including myself.



    I dont know anyone who owns an 802.11 router at all. Most people use integrated DSL modems/802 routers , I guess. At least here in Germany you get them for free from your DSL provider when you subscribe to service.



    The article does not state the volume of the router market , compared to the PC market, which is pretty small, I think.



    So the 10% vs. 6% probably just means that slighty more Mac users buy standalone 802 routers, than Windows users do.
  • Reply 26 of 44
    boogabooga Posts: 1,082member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by obiwan View Post


    I dont know anyone who owns an 802.11 router at all. Most people use integrated DSL modems/802 routers , I guess. At least here in Germany you get them for free from your DSL provider when you subscribe to service.



    The article does not state the volume of the router market , compared to the PC market, which is pretty small, I think.



    So the 10% vs. 6% probably just means that slighty more Mac users buy standalone 802 routers, than Windows users do.



    I got one as part of my FiOS package, but I disable its wireless and use my Apple Airport base station. Why? Well, I already had it around and it's really nice to configure it from the Mac desktop. It also serves my USB printer. Nothing ever goes wrong with it and it just works... something that's rarely true of the DLink or NetGear
  • Reply 27 of 44
    obiwanobiwan Posts: 3member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Booga View Post


    I got one as part of my FiOS package, but I disable its wireless and use my Apple Airport base station. Why? Well, I already had it around and it's really nice to configure it from the Mac desktop. It also serves my USB printer. Nothing ever goes wrong with it and it just works... something that's rarely true of the DLink or NetGear



    Maybe. I can remember setting up a DLink about 2 years ago, which was really a painful process.

    In additon, for a Mac user it is probably more tempting to use Apples WiFi equipment, for example to employ AirTunes.

    But so far I am pretty happy with the AVM FritzBox supplied by my DSL provider. Works flawlessly with my Mac.
  • Reply 28 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Just a minor point: The first computer network was installed in June 1980 at Saratoga High School, Saratoga, CA. The network consisted of 7 Apple][ computers sharing a 5 MB (that's right 5 megabyte) hard drive using a Corvus Network. This was years before LocalTalk on the Mac.



    The Corvus system was also able to network computers of different manufacturers on a single network-- e.g., Apple][, Apple///, TRS80, S100 bus machines like Northstar, and IBM/PC



    While I don't know anything about that Saratoga network, I do remember networking available at that time. Until the Mac came along it was a rare beastie indeed. After the Mac arrived, they became networked quickly. By the late '80's, it was estimated that more Macs were networked around the world than all other computer systems put together.
  • Reply 29 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    The Apple advantage is providing good or great hardware, with a best-in-class user experience.

    I think they could do better with networking.



    Networking is really hard for the average consumer. Even grizzled industry veterans are caught out by firewalls, port-forwarding, DNS server addresses and NAT.



    Imagine a network-designer application, which allowed users to layout and configure a network with drag and drop ease. It could really help Apple shift more product especially if ran on PC.



    C.



    Networking on a Mac is still pretty easy.



    All most people have to do is to add a router, and hook up. DHCP is normally already on. They then just have to go to the network from the drop down "Go" menu, and select the machine. After that, they can either just use the drop boxes, or supply a name and password. Pretty simple. There's rarely any need need to do anything further.



    On my home network, I just use the names and passwords of my family to access their machines. They have privileges on mine as well.



    It's only when you have special needs that you have to go deeper into it, and then, you already know more than the average person.
  • Reply 30 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    While I don't know anything about that Saratoga network, I do remember networking available at that time. Until the Mac came along it was a rare beastie indeed. After the Mac arrived, they became networked quickly. By the late '80's, it was estimated that more Macs were networked around the world than all other computer systems put together.



    Mmm... I don't necessarily agree with your data. Do you have a source?



    Even if your figures are accurate, this does not necessarily mean that these were "AppleTalk" networks. Corvus Ominet was a twisted-pair 1 Mbps network as opposed to AppleTalk special (expensive) shielded cable 230.4 Kbps. Not only that, the AppleTalk protocols were so complex and inefficient that actual performance was about 10% of Omninet.



    My company, Computer Plus, sold both. But for networks of any length or size we sold Omninet. We sold and installed thousands of Omninet networks (Mac, Mixed, and other). Our clients included EMI-Thorne, Daimler-Benz, Piper-Jaffery brokers Minneapolis, US Army Command and Control College Ft. Levenworth, KS, lots of schools, 2 networks at the IBM San Jose, CA. plant., and even 11 networks at Apple Headquarters in Cupertino (Including the Public Relations Department).



    So, at least to us, networking before/after the Mac was not a rare beastie!
  • Reply 31 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Mmm... I don't necessarily agree with your data. Do you have a source?



    Even if your figures are accurate, this does not necessarily mean that these were "AppleTalk" networks. Corvus Ominet was a twisted-pair 1 Mbps network as opposed to AppleTalk special (expensive) shielded cable 230.4 Kbps. Not only that, the AppleTalk protocols were so complex and inefficient that actual performance was about 10% of Omninet.



    My company, Computer Plus, sold both. But for networks of any length or size we sold Omninet. We sold and installed thousands of Omninet networks (Mac, Mixed, and other). Our clients included EMI-Thorne, Daimler-Benz, Piper-Jaffery brokers Minneapolis, US Army Command and Control College Ft. Levenworth, KS, lots of schools, 2 networks at the IBM San Jose, CA. plant., and even 11 networks at Apple Headquarters in Cupertino (Including the Public Relations Department).



    So, at least to us, networking before/after the Mac was not a rare beastie!



    There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.



    IBM had Token Ring, and there were others as well.



    256 Kbs was by far, the fastest networking most people saw. I'm not talking about comparing those speeds to that for the military, or large business, or university, installations



    We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users. for that, other than for Mac LocalTalk networks, few users saw, heard of, or used networks for themselves until MS introduced it with Windows 3.1.1. That was around 1992-3.



    I haven't looked these numbers up now, because I'm going by articles in Byte, and other magazines that wrote about at the time. so this is knowledge from back then that I'm recalling. I suppose it's around somewhere on the net.
  • Reply 32 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.



    IBM had Token Ring, and there were others as well.



    256 Kbs was by far, the fastest networking most people saw. I'm not talking about comparing those speeds to that for the military, or large business, or university, installations



    We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users. for that, other than for Mac LocalTalk networks, few users saw, heard of, or used networks for themselves until MS introduced it with Windows 3.1.1. That was around 1992-3.



    I haven't looked these numbers up now, because I'm going by articles in Byte, and other magazines that wrote about at the time. so this is knowledge from back then that I'm recalling. I suppose it's around somewhere on the net.



    Ahh... You can't (or won't) back up your assertions. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the trade-mags!



    You say "we're talking about personal computers, here and their personal users". I assume that means individually-owned and used at home-- as opposed to those provided at the workplace.*



    If so, just how many homes of that era had more than 1 computer? More than 1, $2,500 Mac? Networked using LocalTalk? For what purpose? To connect to that $7,000 LaserWriter in the closet? In 1980 Dollars?



    C'mon, you can't believe that makes sense!



    *If you mean personal computers provided at the workplace... these were not provided for personal use, rather for the benefit of the enterprise. Now, you are talking about my area of expertise and experience and AppleTalk was Not the network of choice for networks over 3-4 computers-- AppleTalk just didn't bring enough to the table-- Ease of software installation, sure, because it was built into the Mac. But, physical cable installation, speed, flexibility, device support (HDD, Printers, Backup, etc), application and file sharing-- not even close!



    I was at the Apple meeting at Flint Center when SJ introduced AppleTalk... Nice preso, but I think most of the people there new it was a non-starter (especially the Apple people).



    A highly-respected Apple technician (to be unnamed) once described AppleTalk protocol to me, something like this:



    Mac A: Hey, Mac B,

    Mac B: Ya, Mac A?

    Mac A: Mac B, I want to send you some data.

    Mac B: OK, Mac A, Let me know when you're ready to send:

    Mac C: Hey, who is out there?

    Mac A: I'm here.

    Mac B: I'm here too!

    Mac A: Mac B, can you receive the data?

    Mac B: Yes I can, how big is the data?

    Mac A: 1KB in 2 512KB packets.

    Mac B: OK, Let me know when You are ready to send the first packet!

    Mac A: Will Do!

    Mac D: Hi Guys! Who's out there?

    Mac A: I'm here.

    Mac B: I'm here too!

    Mac C: I'm here too!

    *

    *

    *

    Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 1st packet

    Mac B: Yes, Mac A, I'm ready.

    Mac A: OK Mac B, here comes the data on the next message.

    Mac B: OK Mac A, ready?

    Mac A: Mac B, Here's that 1st data packet

    Mac B: Mac A, Whew, got it OK!

    Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 2nd packet

    *

    *

    *

    As opposed to a more efficient network protocol(oversimplified):



    Mac A: Mac B, I have 2 512K packets to send to you... let me know when you are ready

    Mac B: Mac A, I'm ready

    Mac A: Mac B here's the 1st 512K packet

    Mac B: Mac A, Got it, ready for the second packet.



    God forbid there were an error...
  • Reply 33 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    Ahh... You can't (or won't) back up your assertions. Maybe you shouldn't believe everything you read in the trade-mags!



    You say "we're talking about personal computers, here and their personal users". I assume that means individually-owned and used at home-- as opposed to those provided at the workplace.*



    If so, just how many homes of that era had more than 1 computer? More than 1, $2,500 Mac? Networked using LocalTalk? For what purpose? To connect to that $7,000 LaserWriter in the closet? In 1980 Dollars?



    C'mon, you can't believe that makes sense!



    *If you mean personal computers provided at the workplace... these were not provided for personal use, rather for the benefit of the enterprise. Now, you are talking about my area of expertise and experience and AppleTalk was Not the network of choice for networks over 3-4 computers-- AppleTalk just didn't bring enough to the table-- Ease of software installation, sure, because it was built into the Mac. But, physical cable installation, speed, flexibility, device support (HDD, Printers, Backup, etc), application and file sharing-- not even close!



    I was at the Apple meeting at Flint Center when SJ introduced AppleTalk... Nice preso, but I think most of the people there new it was a non-starter (especially the Apple people).



    A highly-respected Apple technician (to be unnamed) once described AppleTalk protocol to me, something like this:



    Mac A: Hey, Mac B,

    Mac B: Ya, Mac A?

    Mac A: Mac B, I want to send you some data.

    Mac B: OK, Mac A, Let me know when you're ready to send:

    Mac C: Hey, who is out there?

    Mac A: I'm here.

    Mac B: I'm here too!

    Mac A: Mac B, can you receive the data?

    Mac B: Yes I can, how big is the data?

    Mac A: 1KB in 2 512KB packets.

    Mac B: OK, Let me know when You are ready to send the first packet!

    Mac A: Will Do!

    Mac D: Hi Guys! Who's out there?

    Mac A: I'm here.

    Mac B: I'm here too!

    Mac C: I'm here too!

    *

    *

    *

    Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 1st packet

    Mac B: Yes, Mac A, I'm ready.

    Mac A: OK Mac B, here comes the data on the next message.

    Mac B: OK Mac A, ready?

    Mac A: Mac B, Here's that 1st data packet

    Mac B: Mac A, Whew, got it OK!

    Mac A: Mac B are you ready to receive the 2nd packet

    *

    *

    *

    As opposed to a more efficient network protocol(oversimplified):



    Mac A: Mac B, I have 2 512K packets to send to you... let me know when you are ready

    Mac B: Mac A, I'm ready

    Mac A: Mac B here's the 1st 512K packet

    Mac B: Mac A, Got it, ready for the second packet.



    God forbid there were an error...



    You haven't backed yours up either. just your own personal experiences.



    And your technical explanations, well, wow!



    In a quote from one older history of networking (the URL follows):



    Quote:

    Introduced more than a decade ago as Apple's first contribution to the field of networked computing, AppleTalk was designed using the same "computing for the masses" philosophy that had been so completely successful (at least initially) for their Macintosh line of computer systems. It was easy to implement, featured relatively simple administrative requirements, and in general caused fewer headaches for network administrators than did the other network protocols popular at the time. Fortunately, the designers at Apple chose to conform to the OSI open-standards model, which has made it much easier to administer, troubleshoot, and to use networks running AppleTalk as their primary protocol.



    http://docs.rinet.ru/NeHi/ch25/ch25.htm



    So, no, it wasn't a problem, or unreliable.
  • Reply 34 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You haven't backed yours up either. just your own personal experiences.



    And your technical explanations, well, wow!



    In a quote from one older history of networking (the URL follows):







    http://docs.rinet.ru/NeHi/ch25/ch25.htm



    So, no, it wasn't a problem, or unreliable.



    I never said it was a problem or unreliable... just slow, expensive and limited.



    OK, earlier you said:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    There were many thousands of networked computers out there other than Mac localtalk, to be sure. But Localtalk still had far more computers wireed up than anything else, hundreds of thousands, which for the time, dwarfed anything else.



    While the link you provided is interesting, it provides no numbers.



    My company sold over 1,000 networks-- smallest was 3 computers, largest 99 computers. Many in the 7-10 computer range, many classrooms in the 15-20 computer range. So, rough estimate, I'd say about 10-15,000 networked computers. From just 1 company!



    Assuming, we're both trying to be factual, Can you dig up a reference for "Hundreds of Thousands" of LocalTalk networked computers installed? Thousands? Macs Networked in a Computer Store Display don't count, Macs networked in the "back room" do count!



    It is particularly frustrating to deal with some one who keeps changing the subject-- we've gone from being the first, the most, the most personal computers for personal use. I have tried to address each of these because i disagree and have facts and personal experience (and good profits) to support me. But you make it a moving target.



    I will leave you with these thoughts.



    1) If AppleTalk was such a good network, why did Apple pay retail for 11 networks in departments that needed to get work done?



    2) What happened to "We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users".



    3) Show me a reference (or personal experience) to a total 3,000 (or so) Macs on LocalTalk networks & I'll accept that AppleTalk was a major player.
  • Reply 35 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I never said it was a problem or unreliable... just slow, expensive and limited.



    OK, earlier you said:







    While the link you provided is interesting, it provides no numbers.



    My company sold over 1,000 networks-- smallest was 3 computers, largest 99 computers. Many in the 7-10 computer range, many classrooms in the 15-20 computer range. So, rough estimate, I'd say about 10-15,000 networked computers. From just 1 company!



    Assuming, we're both trying to be factual, Can you dig up a reference for "Hundreds of Thousands" of LocalTalk networked computers installed? Thousands? Macs Networked in a Computer Store Display don't count, Macs networked in the "back room" do count!



    It is particularly frustrating to deal with some one who keeps changing the subject-- we've gone from being the first, the most, the most personal computers for personal use. I have tried to address each of these because i disagree and have facts and personal experience (and good profits) to support me. But you make it a moving target.



    I will leave you with these thoughts.



    1) If AppleTalk was such a good network, why did Apple pay retail for 11 networks in departments that needed to get work done?



    2) What happened to "We're talking about personal computers here and their personal users".



    3) Show me a reference (or personal experience) to a total 3,000 (or so) Macs on LocalTalk networks & I'll accept that AppleTalk was a major player.



    I didn't change the subject—you did.



    All I said was the speed for what most peope saw in relation to the speed of the old HDDs, and that it was the majority networking protocall sometime during the '80's.



    You changed that to add reliability, etc. I replied to that.



    You also don't understand what I'm saying. I said that I wasn't talking about high performance networks, but networking for individuals, and if we like, small business and K-12.



    I personally know of many such small networks, having set up quite a few myself, here in the NYC B.O.E, small companies, and for any number of friends.



    I've looked in Google, but haven't been able to find ANY information on network percentages for that time period for any network, just some references that Localtalk and Appletalk (which is still being used) was very popular.
  • Reply 36 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I didn't change the subject?you did.



    All I said was the speed for what most peope saw in relation to the speed of the old HDDs, and that it was the majority networking protocall sometime during the '80's.



    You changed that to add reliability, etc. I replied to that.



    You also don't understand what I'm saying. I said that I wasn't talking about high performance networks, but networking for individuals, and if we like, small business and K-12.



    I personally know of many such small networks, having set up quite a few myself, here in the NYC B.O.E, small companies, and for any number of friends.



    I've looked in Google, but haven't been able to find ANY information on network percentages for that time period for any network, just some references that Localtalk and Appletalk (which is still being used) was very popular.



    There you go again... Do a search of the posts for "reliabl" and you will find 5 matches before this post. The only time I used it was quoting you and in response to your post. I never said that AppleTalk was unreliable-- as with most Apple products it is reliable to the extreme.



    I don't believe that many "individual" AppleTalk networks existed then-- I pointed out that this assumes at least 2 $2500 Macs in 1980s Dollars. I'd be surprised if (then) there were more than 800 Macs on "Individual" AppleTalk networks.



    I don't disagree with small networks using AppleTalk. A small classroom or a small business can be a good "fit"-- especially considering the advantage of a single source.



    No mas!
  • Reply 37 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    There you go again... Do a search of the posts for "reliabl" and you will find 5 matches before this post. The only time I used it was quoting you and in response to your post. I never said that AppleTalk was unreliable-- as with most Apple products it is reliable to the extreme.



    I don't believe that many "individual" AppleTalk networks existed then-- I pointed out that this assumes at least 2 $2500 Macs in 1980s Dollars. I'd be surprised if (then) there were more than 800 Macs on "Individual" AppleTalk networks.



    I don't disagree with small networks using AppleTalk. A small classroom or a small business can be a good "fit"-- especially considering the advantage of a single source.



    No mas!



    You're insisting that in oreder for you to conisder it to be a "real" network" in order to count, then it must have 100 or more computers on it?



    I've had a network at home since the late '80's, but never more than 5 computers and two printers at once. That wouldn't count?



    There were many thousands of small Apple networks like that around. There were probably at least 5 thousand of them here in the NYC B.O.A alone, some using Macs, and some using IIE's with Localtalk boards added later.
  • Reply 38 of 44
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    You're insisting that in oreder for you to conisder it to be a "real" network" in order to count, then it must have 100 or more computers on it?



    I've had a network at home since the late '80's, but never more than 5 computers and two printers at once. That wouldn't count?



    There were many thousands of small Apple networks like that around. There were probably at least 5 thousand of them here in the NYC B.O.A alone, some using Macs, and some using IIE's with Localtalk boards added later.



    I wasn't going to continue this, argument, but you misinterpret my posts and attribute statements/inferences I never made



    1) Our largest network was 99 computers

    2) Smallest non-AppleTalk network was 3 computers

    3) Our average classroom was 25 computers (printers, HDDs, Backup Tape, etc).

    4) Our typical non-AppleTalk network for business was 7-10 computers

    5) Our typical AppleTalk network was 3-5 computers (quite a few AppleTalk networks)



    You remind me of a customer who used to visit our store. He would bring a set of questions written 1 per card on a stack of 3x5 cards. He would ask the first question, listen to the answer, nod his head and place the card on the bottom of the stack-- and on to the next question,



    When the first question bubbled to the top, he started through the stack again.



    He obviously wasn't listening or paying attention. Neither are you. You respond to posts with incorrect comments, based on things I didn't post. You choose not to answer questions that directly challenge your "facts",



    Since you cannot be reasoned with I will not waste both our time by trying further.
  • Reply 39 of 44
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


    I wasn't going to continue this, argument, but you misinterpret my posts and attribute statements/inferences I never made



    1) Our largest network was 99 computers

    2) Smallest non-AppleTalk network was 3 computers

    3) Our average classroom was 25 computers (printers, HDDs, Backup Tape, etc).

    4) Our typical non-AppleTalk network for business was 7-10 computers

    5) Our typical AppleTalk network was 3-5 computers (quite a few AppleTalk networks)



    You remind me of a customer who used to visit our store. He would bring a set of questions written 1 per card on a stack of 3x5 cards. He would ask the first question, listen to the answer, nod his head and place the card on the bottom of the stack-- and on to the next question,



    When the first question bubbled to the top, he started through the stack again.



    He obviously wasn't listening or paying attention. Neither are you. You respond to posts with incorrect comments, based on things I didn't post. You choose not to answer questions that directly challenge your "facts",



    Since you cannot be reasoned with I will not waste both our time by trying further.



    Sure. don't forget who started this argument. I wasn't me.



    I'm not saying the you company set up larger computer networks. I am saying that you seem to think that there are enough of those large networks to make up the difference.



    so far, you have made statements that lack any proof as well. They are just something that we have to take as your word.



    As far as that goes, we are even.



    You can be insulting, but it doesn't work. Next time, don't bother to post unless you have your own facts in hand.



    And as you said you were finished with this, I'm assuming that we can trust your word.
  • Reply 40 of 44
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Networking on a Mac is still pretty easy.



    All most people have to do is to add a router, and hook up. DHCP is normally already on. They then just have to go to the network from the drop down "Go" menu, and select the machine. After that, they can either just use the drop boxes, or supply a name and password. Pretty simple. There's rarely any need need to do anything further.



    On my home network, I just use the names and passwords of my family to access their machines. They have privileges on mine as well.



    It's only when you have special needs that you have to go deeper into it, and then, you already know more than the average person.



    The massive levels of confusion on the Apple Airport forums, seem to paint another picture.



    Better still, take a look at the iChat discussions which has all manner of Voodoo nonsense required to get iChat AV to function reliably.



    Apple does a better-than-average job at making networking easier. But I'd argue that it's still not being delivered in a consumer-friendly way. At the moment, the interface is still a Microsoft experience. Here is a page of settings. Go ahead set them....If it does not work. Go try another setting.



    Instead I think a goal-based metaphor would be better for consumers.



    A tool which was aware of all internet connections, routers, relays and clients. And at the same time knew what you were trying to achieve could really revolutionize networking.



    C,
Sign In or Register to comment.