Talk:LapLink cable

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
	This redirect is supported by Networking task force.
	This redirect is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Telecommunications

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles

Benefits

discuss the benefit of dcc in building small networks and where we can decide to use it and where should not use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.11.131.222 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 January 2008‎

With a LabLink cable the connection between two PCs was faster than via a Nullmodem-cable because it used the faster Parallel Port and it was easily affordable for every PC owner, because every PC had a built in Parallel Port interface and no other hardware was required, except the cable itself. Compared to real 10 MBit/s BNC based Ethernet cards it was also a cheap and affordable solution, to connect two PCs at that time. Real Network cards were rather expensive at that time and it was required to buy them additional to the PC, so they were very uncommon in private usage at that time. --109.192.197.21 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep

This may be a stub now and need supporting documentation, but I found this information to be useful and the writing to be clear. So, please keep this Wikipedia entry, and (hopefully) someone with more knowledge about this subject will expand. --Blumrosen (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Blumrosen. Indeed the article is useful and clearly written. Ideally it should be expanded with information about, or at least references to, other types of special cables used in PC-to-PC data transfer. Notably, the preferred cable for use with Laplink's PC Mover software appears to be USB 2.0 as of this writing.

Chipchapin (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Information to add to the article

What data rate is achieved? Which wire carries a clock signal? How many data bits are sent on each clock cycle? Which wires carry data? DriveByWire (talk) 18:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. --109.192.197.21 (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial

This article is a veiled advertisement for laplink.

Come on.

There is nothing notable about a "laplink" cable -- it's just a generic crossover cable.

This article is bullshit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.100.27 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it might be a generic crossover cable for the parallel port, but as its time, it was known as LapLink cable and if you wanted to transfer Data between two PCs over the Parallel Port, you asked for a LapLink cable. --109.192.197.21 (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting snippet of PC history, remembering which just brought me here today. DFH (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change the Laplink stub to a redirect?

There's still a stub for Laplink. It would make sense to change this to just redirect to this page. DFH (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all. That is software that can use a USB adhoc networking cable, or a null-modem cable. And it can do remote desktop takeover in its later versions. The laplink cable itself was used by non-Laplink software as well. The software is notable, and should be able to be built out. The cable is notable separately, because of its use by other non-laplink software. -- 70.31.205.108 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pin 17 citation needed

This page is the only one which mentions 17(Select in) to be connected to 19 on the other side. 19 is normally an extra ground, common with 18‥24 and probably 25, the mandatory ground, and not connected with shielding. From the description, it is unclear whether 19 here is supposed to be common ground or just pin-to-pin.

However, it’s very improbable that 17 should be connected to 19. All other reference materials mandate a 17-17 straight-through (e.g. Linux, Crynwr) or suggest it to be not connected (FreeBSD). Recent NetBSD tests indicate 17-17 may be necessary to communicate with at the very least Linux. mirabilos (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]