[comp.protocols.tcp-ip] An informal survey

rlg@STYX.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) (04/19/91)

Hi.  A recent discussion of the comparative merits of slide latches versus
screw/thumbscrew as a means of attaching a cable to a system port has
prompted this unofficial opinion poll.

Which do you prefer and why?  

or put another way -

Do you like slide latches (the connector used for ethernet cables)?  Why 
or why not?

Do you like screw on connectors?  Why or why not?


Feel free to forward this note to friends.  Also, please reply directly,
not to the list.  I'll publish the results if there are any.

Thanks,

Richard Gralnik
(rlg@desktalk.com)

ckollars@deitrick.East.Sun.COM (Chuck Kollars - Sun Technical Marketing - Boston) (04/20/91)

In article <9104182050.AA07838@desktalk.com> rlg@STYX.DESKTALK.COM (Richard L. Gralnik) writes:
>Hi.  A recent discussion of the comparative merits of slide latches versus
>screw/thumbscrew as a means of attaching a cable to a system port has
>prompted this unofficial opinion poll.
>
>Which do you prefer and why?  
>
>or put another way -
>
>Do you like slide latches (the connector used for ethernet cables)?  Why 
>or why not?

The results of your survey are likely to be seriously skewed.  Ethernet
transceiver cables often don't work, and most folks blame it on the
slide latch.  So I'd guess you're going to get a lot of responses
denigrating the slide latch.

But the full story is that, although the Ethernet transceiver cable
connector on many systems in fact doesn't work very well, it's _not_
the fault of the slide lock.  The spec (see drawing on page 94, just
above section 7.6.2) says that the connector should go on the _outside_
of the backpanel.  But in order for printed circuit boards to be
stuffed and soldered by automatic machinery then married to the system
later, the connector is often mounted on the _inside_ of the
backpanel.  Result -- the connector wobbles and makes poor electrical
connection even though the cable is inserted "all the way" and the
slide lock is "closed".

The Ethernet spec was apparently written by someone who either was not
a mechanical engineer, or did not have any experience with automated
manufaturing.  The reputation of the slide lock will probably never
recover from that oversight.
---
chuck kollars    <ckollars@East.Sun.COM>
Sun Technical Marketing, located in Sun's Boston Development Center

rlstewart@eng.xyplex.com (Bob Stewart) (04/23/91)

> The Ethernet spec was apparently written by someone who either was not
> a mechanical engineer, or did not have any experience with automated
> manufaturing.  The reputation of the slide lock will probably never
> recover from that oversight.

Yup.  I know the guy.  At the Ethernet 10 year reunion last fall, he asked
what the designers would do differently.  He (an electrical engineer)
perpetrated the slide lock.  He regrets it, and he wouldn't do it again.
For what it's worth, the idea of the slide lock comes from the late 70s,
when automated manufacturing techniques were probably a bit different.

	Bob

henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/23/91)

In article <5634@eastapps.East.Sun.COM> ckollars@east.sun.com (Chuck Kollars - Sun Technical Marketing - Boston) writes:
>... The spec (see drawing on page 94, just
>above section 7.6.2) says that the connector should go on the _outside_
>of the backpanel.  But in order for printed circuit boards to be
>stuffed and soldered by automatic machinery then married to the system
>later, the connector is often mounted on the _inside_ of the
>backpanel.  Result -- the connector wobbles and makes poor electrical
>connection...

There is absolutely no problem with having the connector on the inside
of the panel provided the slide lock is mounted there too.  Manufacturers
have been known to get this right.  Of course, it's harder, and we all
know that most manufacturers would rather do things the easy way than
the right way.  Especially a certain workstation vendor whose name starts
with S...

The *intentions* of the slide-lock advocates were good.  All too often,
screw-equipped connectors aren't screwed in because the relevant screwdriver
is not handy.  A poor locking system which gets used is better than a good
one that doesn't.  Unfortunately, they didn't realize that (a) transceiver
cables are sufficiently heavier than rs232 cables that use of locking is
effectively mandatory anyway, and (b) the slide locks are flimsy and easily
damaged.
-- 
And the bean-counter replied,           | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
"beans are more important".             |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

jerry@olivey.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre) (05/07/91)

In article <5634@eastapps.East.Sun.COM> ckollars@east.sun.com (Chuck Kollars - Sun Technical Marketing - Boston) writes:
>The Ethernet spec was apparently written by someone who either was not
>a mechanical engineer, or did not have any experience with automated
>manufaturing.  The reputation of the slide lock will probably never
>recover from that oversight.

The use of the slide lock also predates the "pizza box" and personal
computer designs.  All the old systems that I have seen use an internal
cable to go from the board to the chassis and the connector is mounted
on the outside of the mounting plate.  Under those conditions it is OK
though I always try to strain relief it where I can.

Even the case where the connector is soldered to the board it would be
easy to correct the problem.  Just mount the connector to (the outside
of) a small metal plate before soldering it to the board.  That metal
plate can then be screwed to the chassis where the connector would have
been.  The DB15 and slide lock assembly can then protrude tru a larger
hole in the chasis.  A 10 cent fix.  A smart connector manufacturer
would start selling the PC mount versions with a mounting bracket
already attached.  Having the slide lock come pre-assembled would
please those "automated manufacturing" types.

Are those "mechanical engineer"s deliberately violating the design spec
to cut costs or are they just ignorant of it?  That should be the real
question being asked here!

Screws are not perfect either.  When was the last time you removed a
cable and had the barrel nut come out with it?  Maybe we need a new
spec.  Anyone for a modular transceiver cable?

				Jerry Aguirre

roy@phri.nyu.edu (Roy Smith) (05/07/91)

jerry@olivey.ATC.Olivetti.Com (Jerry Aguirre) writes:
> Screws are not perfect either.  When was the last time you removed a
> cable and had the barrel nut come out with it?

	Some screws are better than others.  The problem you are referring
to is again the fault of stupid designers who use screws to attach the
mounting sockets for the connector screws; i.e. an implementation problem,
not a concept problem.  I remember the lowly ADM-3/3a/5 terminals which had
moulded-in screw sockets.  I've never had one of those come off with the
cable when I unscrewed the hold-down screws.

	The after-the-fact fix to connectors which have screwed-on-sockets
is a dab of epoxy on the inner nut to keep it from comming off.  We've got
lots of terminals/printers/etc with dabs of epoxy inside, but people
shouldn't have to resort to such antics to keep a cable connected.

	And, the answer to not having a screwdriver handy, is to make
cables with thumbscrews, like Apple used to use for the old-style LocalTalk
connectors (Mac-512 and LaserWriter).
--
Roy Smith, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016
roy@alanine.phri.nyu.edu -OR- {att,cmcl2,rutgers,hombre}!phri!roy
"Arcane?  Did you say arcane?  It wouldn't be Unix if it wasn't arcane!"