Talk:IBM Token ring

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Token Ring
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Token Ring

Untitled

I removed the statement "in a counter-clockwise direction" in the last sentence of the first paragraph of the article; the previous sentence states travel is unidirectional, but I don't think a token-ring network knows if it's left- or right-handed. --- Ettlz, 13 Sept 2004 13:56 BST

If somebody could explain what a "star-wired logical ring" is, I think that could help this article's clarity. Thanks! --- N8wilson, 2 May 04:15 EST (-04:00)

I have added an image showing the "star-wired logical ring". I also removed the sentence about the star wired logical ring as it is confusing and the same concept is explained up higher with the "... is wired as a star, with 'hubs' and arms out to each station ..." sentence. Sfisher 23:47, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned in Template_Talk:IPstack#Template_overuse I don't think it is appropriate to put the IPstack template on the Token Ring page. Does anyone disagree? Sfisher 00:46, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

RobertPhoenix (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)== dates? ==[reply]

"Initially (in 1985) Token-Ring ran at 4 Mbit/s, but in 1989 IBM introduced the first 16 Mbit/s Token-Ring products and the 802.5 standard was extended to support this. In 1981, Apollo Computers introduced their proprietary 12 Mbit/s Apollo Token Ring (ATR). However, IBM Token-Ring was not compatible with ATR." ... Was Token Ring invented/started/etc in 1985 with IBM's 4 Mbit token ring, or in 1981 with Apollo's 12 Mbit ATR? It would be unusual (at least for today, anyway... I was born in '87) for a network technology to be introduced (proprietary or not) and then for a many-times slower technology to be released 4 years later. Please pardon my comment if the dates are correct as they are.

Hmm, good spotting! I wasn't aware of this. The explanation is that "token ring" networks were the buzz in the early 80's. Appolo was the 'hot rod' graphic workstation company so its not unreasonable thet there earlier ssystem could b faster. IBM's later version become "Token Ring" (note caps) because they 'owned' both the mainframe and PC space. I'm certain that the physical cabling with Apollo's were very different to IBM's. Will update/clarify the article when I've got more detail. Snori

I added the 1985 and 1981 dates. Yes, I believe Apollo Token Ring predates IBM Token Ring[1]. 4 Mbps was still quite fast. Remember, 10 Mbps Ethernet was common-place in the early-to-mid 1990s. I think IBM Token Ring became "Token Ring" because of 802.5, actually. --StuartBrady 18:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the patent holder, Olof Söderblom, information and first Token-Ring installation (late 1960s in Sweden). There is no mention in article of Proteon's Pro-Net 4 (aligned to IEEE 802.5) and Pro-Net 10 (higher speed implementation) in the early 1980s. These were actually on the market before the IBM product offering. I installed Pro-Net 10 at a few clients in this period -- predated later 16 Mb version of Token-Ring and matched Ehternet speeds of that period. --User:Beatgr 15:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was developing a networking product in 1993 and we intended to have both Ethernet and Token Ring versions. However the price to obtain a Token Ring license from Söderblom was so out of all proportion that we decided we would have to go Ethernet only (although we did have Thin Ethernet and 10baseT connections). I wonder how many other products ignored Token Ring for just that reason. I do remember that it was considered superior but unattainable. The story at the time was that IBM had paid Söderblom a very significant amount of money for their license, and that he then used that as a war chest to strictly enforce his patent. Whether he was a brilliant inventor who was fully entitled to be rewarded I do not know. I just know that the license terms were impossible for us.RobertPhoenix (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Token-Ring - correct naming?

Isn't the official name "Token-Ring"? SyP 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good point. There is also another Wikipedia entry IBM token ring, that I have suggested be merged with this material. User:Beatgr 16:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:IBM token ring. In particular, it's now proposed there to move the merged article to a name that doesn't specifically refer to the IBM implementation. Andrewa 19:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]