Stupid bus tricks

From: Mike Allison <mallison_at_konnections.com>
Date: Mon Feb 2 22:14:41 1998

I thought the multiplexed NeXT "Zilla?" used the SCSI ports...

You talked about a system where the bus had to be arbitrated, that
wouldn't necessarily be needed if you went through SCSI, would it...

Love this conversation, but maybe we aren't the best info sources on
this....

-Mike

Brett wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Max Eskin wrote:
> > (Sigh!) Well, it seems that I need more explanation.
>
> Always a good place to start - and welcome 8-)
>
> > I was wondering if
> > this would be a more resource-conserving way to do it, and
> > technologically easier. I would do this with network cards if I had
> > them.
>
> Speed wise this is probably the best - however ....
>
> > Serial ports might be good, as well as parallel. Is there a way to
> > make the computer do TCP/IP via serial or parallel port?
>
> This should/could work. Depends upon the OS used. For any decent
> speed it would have to be multitasking.
>
> > So, could you
> > please tell me, COULD I STICK A RIBBON CABLE INTO TWO DIFFERENT
> > MOTHERBOARDS AND PRETEND THAT THE MBs ARE CARDS OF EACH OTHER?
>
> Ribbon cable from any slot on a PC with an independent clock source to
> any slot on another PC with another independent clock - NO WAY
>
> As stated before - it COULD be done but the cost of the interface cards
> which would have to arbitrate the timing and access the bus on each
> computer would FAR exceed the cost of a NIC card. Even with the network
> card in - you are limited by the OS chosen to run it.
>
> In summary Direct - No. Serial using TCP/IP over PPP - Yes.
> Network - The Best!
>
> BC
Received on Mon Feb 02 1998 - 22:14:41 GMT