- Nov 20, 2006
- Reaction score
True, Jiro, True.
I have two questions from my last chapter. We've already moved on and these questions were NOT addressed in the test, so I still do not know the answers to these. I would like to know this in case it comes up for final exams, and just to know it anyway. Can you help?
Which of the following characteristics is associated with a peer-to-peer network? (Choose all that apply.)
a) easy to install
c) user-managed resources
d) centralized control
e) server failure having a drastic effect on the network
I tried this question several times (it's "unlimited" any time I want to guess, but it doesn't give me the correct answer) and no matter which combo I choose, it's always been wrong.
Which of the following operating systems supports peer-to-peer networking? (Choose all that apply)
a) Windows XP Professional
b) Windows 9x (anything higher than Windows 98)
c) Windows 2.0
d) Windows Server 2003
In this case, after getting this wrong so many times, I googled this. I can find peer-to-peer networking for XP Professional, 9x (98+), and 2.0. So after numerous tries with this, I STILL get this wrong. Can you help?
It would also be great if you could tell me WHY you chose the answer you did. Thanks !!
I agree.then #2 is bugged (assuming you have tried ALL kinds of combo). It happened to me so I simply emailed the professor and it was corrected.
Yeah 2.0 is a really, really old- and dead operating system that was made during the 80s. It was so primitive, compared today, it didn't even display full colors. The GUI (Graphics User Interface) was a stark Monochrome or dual colors, couldn't support more than probably a few colors on the screen at once. It was basically dos with a "point and click" environment.
Then a few years later, Microsoft improved it and 3.0, --> 3.1 --> 3.11 came out, and these became mainstream where MS started to get fame on "windows"
3.1/3.11 got a little advanced, forgot what they changed, I was too small to remember anything different at that time - except more kiddie games worked on it:
After that, 95 was released > 98 > 98 SE > Me > the rest you've got it down.
4) Networking has nothing to do with the data bus I think, it's completely another category. If you know the definition of a Data bus, it's the transfer of data between the CPU, memory, and cards/stuff attached.
Unless it's referring to copying stuff over the network in terms of shaping the data bus developement, but if it's referring to just data buses alone then network-related should not even be in the answers.
B for no network involved stuff
A B (maybe D, not sure about D) for network involvement
5) A + D i'm 99.9% on this. Let me know if you want an explanation.
Catty, I never realized 3.11 had networking! Was too small to understand the internet back then, but I do remember that is when people started using their 2800 baud and 14400 modems lol!
Hmm, this will be a bit tough for me because I never really got into the indepth specific terminologies of wireless technology. Let me see what I can link those definitions to the real application.
A) Reflected Infrared
Firstly, infrared categorization is split into several categories.
The most basic is NIR/NI, which means Near Infrared. This is around .75 to 1.4 micrometers. If you want to convert that micro to a standard meter, a micrometer is 1,000,000th of a meter (.75 microm would be .000000075 meters, 1.4 is .00000014 meters). So this distance is really, really short, not even an inch.
The next level up is called SWIR, which means Shortwave Infrared. This is a step up from NIR, the distance doubling to ~1.5 - 3 ish micrometers. This distance is really no higher than that of NI, since the difference may not even be a tenth of a digit (.75-1.4 vs 1.5-3). Doing the math conversion again, 1.5 um (u sign for micro) is .00000015 meters, 3um is .0000003 meters. This is still not even an inch yet.
The thing about Reflected Infrared is that it is a categorization of NIR + SWIR, so both those fit under the definition of "Reflective". It is safe to say that A is not in your final answer.
B) Point to Point Infrared
This is a massive jump from the previous version of Infrared. This is its big brother. Think of it like the TV remote to your TV. It is working by a wireless invisible beam of light from point A to B.
For Point to Point I don't have the specifics but according to a source, that is discussing wireless alternatives, Streaming Point to Point data can cover a small street or a small campus, usually from a nearby building to another. This would lead me to think since these distances are often within ~50-100+ feet of each other, Point to Point would fit in the categorization of applicable wireless technologies.
C) Spread-Spectrum Radio
Some of these you have seen without realizing it today. Some of the huge antennas on top of commercial buildings, that may be several feet high or up to hundreds of feet. The broadcast range can go very far, up to miles. I don't know much of the history aside from the fact that this used to be developing military technology during the 50's and got perfected in the 80s where it got commercial use. But in response to the question, answer C does definitely work.
D) Terrestrial Microwave
This is also similar to the above, in the fasion that you may have seen it but not realized what it is, on top of those telephone towers with a bunch of round dishes and antenna needles sticking out of it. They mainly used it for telephone appliances which popped out around the time after Spread spectrum radio, and the distance can go pretty damn far. From wiki, a source stated that the distance could cover from about 6370km to 8500km, explicitly from the diamater size of the dish. If we just even bumped it down to 3000km that's about ~1900 ish miles. (1 KM is about .62 of a mile)
E) Low Power Single Freq. Radio
This is how the data that is transmitted between my laptop, your laptop, from our modem routers to the onboard wireless NIC. The distance is a little short but varies depending, and the 70ft you have down seems about right. I would generally assume, for average priced routers the distance covered by the radio is probably up to a few hundred feet barring the obstacles like mortar and wood. You could probably do a building to building concept, but on a weak scale it would not do much good. Like, for example I can get wireless signals here from my laptop right now to about maybe 200ft of circumference from the center of where I am now. I can pick up up to 10 signals, each house in our neighboorhood is about probably 50 ft apart. My next door neighbor's and backyard neighbor's signal is in the decent (30-50% range). But in a real situation as in NY, I would imagine this would be a lot worse to deal with.
It is situational as it can be done, but for a general answer I would be likely to agree that E would not apply for a standard between two buildings.
Therefore, reviewing over what we got, it would appear:
B, C, D would fit for the question of "linking wirelessly between two buildings of unknown distance"
Hope you're okay with this response, lol I tried to dumb it down as good as i could get. If someone wants to correct or add something, feel free to do so because I am not *personally* familiar in experience with most of them. I only have a broad concept and technicality of these aren't one of them, aside from IR and broadband.