Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Karlnet\]\s+Karlnet\s+for\s+USB\!\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*\[Karlnet\]\s+Karlnet\s+for\s+USB\!\s*$/: 12 ]

Total 12 documents matching your query.

1. [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: Scott Stevens - WISP Notes <wspnote@scottstevens.net>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:27:11 -0600; I'd like to hear the lists opinion on what they'd pay for karlnet on USB (similar to NDIS client driver) and if you think it is worthwhile?? -- Scott Stevens 800-815-4682 scott@scottstevens.net order; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00204.html (7,976 bytes)
2. Re: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "admin " <admin@mail.warpspeedinternet.ws>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:01:59 -0700; I think it's worthwhile. There are certain people I dont care to monitor anything other than signal and dont need a full blown ethernet solution. $25-$35 per lic. would be cool. -- Eric L. Johnson Wa; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00206.html (9,031 bytes)
3. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "barrywhitcomb" <barrywhitcomb@msn.com>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 16:27:46 -0400; A USB unit (similar to the Agere/Orinoco) that would support the higher powered Prism cards would be a good and simple CPE for some installations. It would allow for being placed nearer the antenna,; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00210.html (10,480 bytes)
4. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "Kevin Knuth" <kknuth@karlnet.com>; Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:41:57 -0500; All, This is an interesting thread! Karlnet has been researching the USB possibilities for some time. I was involved in such a meeting this past week, and I would appreciate opinions on what we heard; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00216.html (11,722 bytes)
5. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "hfl-lists" <hfl-lists@stormcrows.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 08:01:44 -0500; Man, that is a whole lot of latency.... A question to someone who has not yet deployed TC (but is planning on it): is the max link speed of a TC network 5.5mbps instead of 11mbps? I thought that ther; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00217.html (12,752 bytes)
6. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "Bill Fisher" <fisher@akorn.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:42:12 -0400; No. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the maximum throughput it a function of the radio and not the OS (Karlnet in this case). Maybe I'm wrong? No that is not the case on figuring overhead. I r; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00218.html (9,134 bytes)
7. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "Bill Fisher" <fisher@akorn.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:45:17 -0400; So my feeling is that this doesn't make one bit of differnce. That most of us are limiting bandwidth to less than 512K anyway. If we aren't, and trying to provide some kind of T1-equivelent service.; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00219.html (8,926 bytes)
8. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "hfl-lists" <hfl-lists@stormcrows.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 09:56:12 -0500; If he is talking about lowering your AGGREGATE bandwidth available to ALL customers down to 3.2mbps then that is something to think about.. If you are doing residential or something, no big deal.. Bu; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00220.html (10,059 bytes)
9. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "Bill Fisher" <fisher@akorn.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:16:08 -0400; Polling doesn't add overhead in the TC implementation. In TC, the more traffic on the network... the faster the network gets for everyone. Again, this because of polling combined with super-packets.; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00221.html (9,265 bytes)
10. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: Roger Boggs <rogerboggs@att.net>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:54:38 -0400; Hey, look how proud Alvarion is of their 3Mbps frequency hopper. So my feeling is that this doesn't make one bit of differnce. That most of us are limiting bandwidth to less than 512K anyway. If we a; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00222.html (9,585 bytes)
11. Re: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "Bob Hrbek" <bhrbek@jagwireless.com>; Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:44:03 -0500; 11Mb radio speed does not equal 11Mb data speed. On a typical 802.11b network you will get 4.5Mb data speed. It appears with Karlnet, under a little load...you'll actually get better performance than; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00223.html (15,080 bytes)
12. RE: [Karlnet] Karlnet for USB! (score: 1): Author: "barrywhitcomb" <barrywhitcomb@msn.com>; Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 07:56:48 -0400; I was thinking about this over the weekend. Would USB 2.0 standard improve the throughput. It seems that USB 2.0 is finally starting to catch on in the marketplace. From reports (but no direct experi; /archives//html/Karlnet/2002-05/msg00229.html (12,397 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 12
Page: [1]