Why are new Suns thick Ethernet only

[Dan Lance]

In article <8905180115.AA03696 at saigon.key.com> nguyen at key.key.com (Chien Nguyen) writes:
>In article <10217 at orstcs.CS.ORST.EDU> rudolf at oce.orst.edu (Jim Rudolf) writes:
>>I was surprised
>>to find that all new CPUs will only have thick Ethernet connectors.  OK, I
>>agree with going with only 1 port.  It means not having to mess with
>>jumper cables.  But why thick?!?
>
>Most users already have Thicknet installed.

This is a gross generalization;  for many people, it is just plain wrong.
Thick Ethernet is expensive to purchase and install and difficult to
modify; modifications to a thick Ethernet setup often need to be done by
trained people.  Thin Ethernet is cheap to purchase and install and easy
to modify.

I cannot touch our thick Ethernet cables, so I need to go through our
corporate telecom people, who are expensive, slow and inefficient.  In
contrast, I can string thin cable around the office quickly and
inexpensively.

Even though many people have thick netowrks installed, their lack of
flexibility makes them less attractive for the office environment -- which
is where most 3/80s and SPARCstation 1s will go.  Or do yours sit in
machine rooms with raised floors?

>For compability issue,
>providing Thicknet probably is a must for Sun.

"Probably is a must."  I love it.  You must have taken writing lessons
from my management.

>In addition, the Thinnet
>transceiver can be incorporated externally and does not have to be in the
>system.  By taking the Thinnet transceiver away from the CPU board (on the
>new CPUs), the board space is reduced as well as the system cost (believe
>me, when you want to integrate a lot of features on a small board, every
>single square mil does count).

The Ethernet interface is the most important interface on the machine in
most cases.  (Perhaps they should have left the sound port off to allow a
thin transceiver.)  In any case, pleading "well, we don't have enough
board space"  is not an acceptable reason for leaving off a feature as
needed as the thin transceiver.  Cost is also not a factor.  The hardware
needed to convert from thich to thin is more expensive than the
incremental cost of a thin transceiver on the CPU board.

>And for those users that need the Thinnet
>interface, an external converter which is available from many vendors is a
>solution.  This is a win-win solution for everyone. 

So you save $200 or so on the workstation and then spend far more than
that to connect it to your thin Ethernet network.  Since many more people
use thin cable in offices than thick cable, the nice small workstation
that you like so much must now have a stiff assembly of brain-damaged
cables and converters hanging off of the back of it to connect it to the
thin cable your old 3/50 used.

"Win-win solutions" like this I don't need.

>C. Nguyen
>email: pacbell!key!nguyen
>Disclaimer: I neither speak for Sun nor for my current employer.  Obviously,
>it's my opinion.

You can have it, too.

drl
Daniel R. Lance / Eastman Kodak Company / drl at kodak.com