From - Fri Dec 19 01:02:34 1997 Path: news2.cais.com!out2.nntp.cais.net!in1.nntp.cais.net!enews.sgi.com!news.idt.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!streamer1.cleveland.iagnet.net!iagnet.net!reader1.cleveland.iagnet.net!not-for-mail From: jimw@vosaic.com (Jim Wong) Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2 Subject: Re: Connecting an Apple ][e to a Mac Message-ID: References: <19971216145111960417@[150.101.7.203]> <67558r$8qf$1@darla.visi.com> <6772ek$1u4$1@opal.southwind.net> <6774gk$2ks$1@darla.visi.com> Organization: Vosaic LLC Lines: 27 Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:04:48 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.68.64.120 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 04:04:48 EST Xref: news2.cais.com comp.sys.apple2:128435 In article <6774gk$2ks$1@darla.visi.com>, nathan@visi.com (Nathan Mates) wrote: > > TCP/IP is a *far* better protocol overall than Appletalk, doesn't > require specific hardware, and doesn't require Apple to write > everything you use. And with Apple not giving Apple II folks anything > since 1993 or so, that not being dependent on 1 source is a darn > useful thing. But, hey, if you're so blinded you automatically > distrust anything without a fruity stamp of approval on the software, > I guess that's your loss. AppleTalk is a different protocol, designed for a different set of needs than TCP/IP. What's more, it doesn't require specific hardware: you can run AppleTalk over ethernet, LocalTalk or dialup connections without difficulty. Now, if you want to claim that TCP/IP embodies a more farsighted, scalable design than AppleTalk, I certainly won't argue with you. But AppleTalk serves the applications for which it was designed pretty well, and provides a remarkable degree of user-level simplicity. -- Jim Wong (jimw@vosaic.com)