Closed

IPX vs TCP

Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?
8 answers Last reply
More about tomshardware
  1. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    In article <c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>, nospam@nospam.org
    says...
    > which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?

    IPX is faster than TCP/IP, but you can't do IPX over the internet in
    multi-player games (in general).

    Lan games benefit from IPX mode.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  2. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    "Tharg" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
    news:c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
    > which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?

    Although IPX is in theory faster it does have some nasty overheads and
    is more prone to error loss than TCP/IP which is why it is a dying
    protocol that hardly anyone uses anymore and besides on a LAN the tiny
    speed difference is nothing to worry about. Just use TCP/IP, it's one
    less driver taking up resources
  3. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:

    > In article <c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>, nospam@nospam.org
    > says...
    >
    >>which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?
    >
    >
    > IPX is faster than TCP/IP, but you can't do IPX over the internet in
    > multi-player games (in general).

    IPX is a kludge, actually.

    Back in the early 90's, there was a computer game Bolo for Macintosh.
    Now, the game was good, but the real reason it was created was for
    a doctoral thesis on networking. The creater invented the single
    most efficient method of multiplayer serverless online gaming.

    No servers, each client runs the program and the networking verifies
    the data that is transmitted. Since everyone else's machine is
    acting as a check, cheating is virtually impossible without
    hardcore programming/decompiling the code.

    Each machine only needs enough bandwidth to connect to 2-3
    other machines, no matter if there are 5 or 50 players.
    Really slick technology.

    To date, nothing else comes close to this method, but - he cannot
    release the technology, sell it, or even talk about it.

    See - he went to work for Apple Computer, where he still works.

    Due to their intellectual "big-brother" property rules, anything
    the talks about, develops, or so much as LOOKS at on his own time
    even in part becomes wholly Apple's property(Disney does the same
    thing, btw).

    **Note - Disney, Apple, Microsoft, and several other companies
    all do this. The idea that what you do as a hobby on your free
    time at home is somehow "owned" by your employer is ubsurd, yet
    that's the state of affiars here in the U.S.**

    So, in order to retain the rights to the networking patents,
    he cannot answer emails, talk about it, sell it, or even look
    at a single line of code. It sits and rots until he finally
    leaves Apple. Sad, really.

    Still, the quality that we have now with high-speed internet
    is more than sufficient to allow decent online gaming, even
    if it is client-server based. Of course, modem players are hosed.

    The 24-32 player limit in most games, though, is a bit frustrating.
    Currently there is no way to run a (central)serverless MMORPG and
    with data requirements creeping ever-further upwards, we'll hit
    10-20K per second requirements per machine in the next 4-5 years.

    Hopefully he comes out of his cave and rejoins the rest of us.
    We really need his code to keep from hitting that wall.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    In article <1081443431.26877.0@echo.uk.clara.net>, fake@ddre.ss says...
    >
    > "Tharg" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
    > news:c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
    > > which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?
    >
    > Although IPX is in theory faster it does have some nasty overheads and
    > is more prone to error loss than TCP/IP which is why it is a dying
    > protocol that hardly anyone uses anymore and besides on a LAN the tiny
    > speed difference is nothing to worry about. Just use TCP/IP, it's one
    > less driver taking up resources

    The difference can be quite noticeable - that's why a lot of shops that
    can afford to have a TCP/IP front end for users and a IPX backend for
    tape backup/ server to server communications.

    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  5. Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    "Leythos" <void@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:MPG.1adf55bccd91db0a98a380@news-server.columbus.rr.com...
    > In article <1081443431.26877.0@echo.uk.clara.net>, fake@ddre.ss
    says...
    > >
    > > "Tharg" <nospam@nospam.org> wrote in message
    > > news:c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au...
    > > > which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?
    > >
    > > Although IPX is in theory faster it does have some nasty overheads
    and
    > > is more prone to error loss than TCP/IP which is why it is a dying
    > > protocol that hardly anyone uses anymore and besides on a LAN the
    tiny
    > > speed difference is nothing to worry about. Just use TCP/IP, it's
    one
    > > less driver taking up resources
    >
    > The difference can be quite noticeable - that's why a lot of shops
    that
    > can afford to have a TCP/IP front end for users and a IPX backend
    for
    > tape backup/ server to server communications.

    I haven't seen an up-to-date network running IPX in years except where
    Novell is present. SAP broadcasts need way too much bandwidth for
    large scale multi-server infrastructures especially as filtering tends
    to over stress routers.

    In most cases I have found the best overall network performance is
    achieved using TCP/IP from client to server and netBEUI/netBIOS from
    local server to local server (due to it's lack of routeability) and
    IPv6 where servers need to communicate directly with servers outside
    of the local network. I would never attach a backup device over a
    network unless absolutely necessary and if I did I would use IPv6
    otherwise they would attach directly to the server or RAID

    Although as the original question was which provides the fastest
    connection over a LAN I would have to concede that IPX is the smaller
    faster protocol but I wouldn't use it.
  6. Quote:
    Archived from groups: alt.games.half-life.counterstrike (More info?)

    Leythos wrote:

    > In article <c533v4$lcs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>, nospam@nospam.org
    > says...
    >
    >>which provides faster connection for LAN games? IPX or TCT/IP?
    >
    >
    > IPX is faster than TCP/IP, but you can't do IPX over the internet in
    > multi-player games (in general).

    IPX is a kludge, actually.

    Back in the early 90's, there was a computer game Bolo for Macintosh.
    Now, the game was good, but the real reason it was created was for
    a doctoral thesis on networking. The creater invented the single
    most efficient method of multiplayer serverless online gaming.

    No servers, each client runs the program and the networking verifies
    the data that is transmitted. Since everyone else's machine is
    acting as a check, cheating is virtually impossible without
    hardcore programming/decompiling the code.

    Each machine only needs enough bandwidth to connect to 2-3
    other machines, no matter if there are 5 or 50 players.
    Really slick technology.

    To date, nothing else comes close to this method, but - he cannot
    release the technology, sell it, or even talk about it.

    See - he went to work for Apple Computer, where he still works.

    Due to their intellectual "big-brother" property rules, anything
    the talks about, develops, or so much as LOOKS at on his own time
    even in part becomes wholly Apple's property(Disney does the same
    thing, btw).

    **Note - Disney, Apple, Microsoft, and several other companies
    all do this. The idea that what you do as a hobby on your free
    time at home is somehow "owned" by your employer is ubsurd, yet
    that's the state of affiars here in the U.S.**

    So, in order to retain the rights to the networking patents,
    he cannot answer emails, talk about it, sell it, or even look
    at a single line of code. It sits and rots until he finally
    leaves Apple. Sad, really.

    Still, the quality that we have now with high-speed internet
    is more than sufficient to allow decent online gaming, even
    if it is client-server based. Of course, modem players are hosed.

    The 24-32 player limit in most games, though, is a bit frustrating.
    Currently there is no way to run a (central)serverless MMORPG and
    with data requirements creeping ever-further upwards, we'll hit
    10-20K per second requirements per machine in the next 4-5 years.

    Hopefully he comes out of his cave and rejoins the rest of us.
    We really need his code to keep from hitting that wall.


    alright if everything is owned by said company, what if that person you mentioned above was to create a nasty virus and sent it to a goverment pc (got no idea how he would get it there but anyways) then the company would be charged as theoretically it would be there property? please tell others if it is true or not, i would say reply but the chances of me going back to this website are very slim! if it were true then apple, microsoft and other companies might be f***ed
  7. MOD - could we get a lock on this 8 year old necro'ed thread?
  8. This topic has been closed by Area51reopened
Ask a new question

Read More

IP LAN Games Connection TCP/IP Video Games