This makes the most sense. Why would AT&T (Lucent & Agere) call two
different products the same name? They would not. Yes it might be a
slower version but still should be compatible. Which means, what if we
could get the source to these, we might be able to modify it to work
with the Wavelan PCMCIA card. Then it is possible we do not need to
spend so much time developing it, unless the grouper has built in
software that translates the Wavelan to Appletalk. Maybe we should try
searching this route, because it might be easy. Again I do not
understand how the Groupers work and am trying to point people in a
better direction to get this done.
Chris
From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael=20J.=20Hu=DFmann?="
<michael_at_michael-hussmann.de>
Subject: Re: [NTLK] Groupers were based on Wavelan
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 20:39:36 +0100
Fred Buecker (tfbiii_at_nbscomputers.net) wrote:
Then I'm thinking of the WaveLAN technology, maybe Lucent did that as a
marketing scheme, but WaveLAN as I know it is an older wireless
technology that topped out at about 2Mbs.
Lucent's WaveLAN card have always been based on the 802.11 standard. The
first versions of these cards supported just 2 Mbs while later 802.11b
versions supported 11 Mbs. As a matter of fact, Apple's AirPort cards
were developed by Lucent and are based on WaveLAN technology.
Interoperability between older 2 Mbs (by Lucent, Farallon, or others) and
newer 11 Mbs cards is no problem at all; 11 Mbs cards will fall back to 2
Mbs anyway if the signal strength is too low to support 11 Mbs.
- Michael
Michael J. Hussmann
E-mail: michael_at_michael-hussmann.de
WWW: http://michael-hussmann.de
-- This is the Newtontalk mailinglist - http://www.newtontalk.net To unsubscribe or manage: visit the above link or mailto:newtontalk-request_at_newtontalk.net?Subject=unsubscribe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Feb 01 2002 - 16:03:32 EST