Gamecube lan functionality on Wii

[viperjason]

yep tryed it last night... wifi had no clue where the gamecube was... i doubt its even connected to the gamecube section of the wii... the lan adapter might work though so anyone who has one on there wii let me know.. ill let you know everything you need to get online with double dash

The LAN adapter has a bigger issue. That would mean that the gamecube knew what USB was. Now I dont have a game cube, but did the lan adapter for it run on USB or was it proprietary?

If proprietary then there is less of a chance that the Lan adapter would work.

 

[mym6]

how much is the lan adapter? i might just buy one and try it out for sake of argument... then take it back later...

There are other places on the net stating the network functionality built into the Wii is not available when the Wii is running as a gamecube. But give it a shot just for sport

 

[wezeles]

The LAN adapter has a bigger issue. That would mean that the gamecube knew what USB was. Now I dont have a game cube, but did the lan adapter for it run on USB or was it proprietary?

If proprietary then there is less of a chance that the Lan adapter would work.

didnt even think of that... GC didnt even use usb it was just an open slot on the bottom of the gamecube dirrect link...

 

[wezeles]

There are other places on the net stating the network functionality built into the Wii is not available when the Wii is running as a gamecube. But give it a shot just for sport

i dont doubt it there was only a handful of lan games and only 1 online game for GC not exactly popular stuff..lol and most people probably dont even know about the lan capabilities of games like double dash... so why would they bother spending the money to intergrate GC network into the wii's might make it cost 260 each..lol and all of 10 people would use it

 

[gamechaser001]

You bet your ass Ethernet is a protocol. Ethernet is the single most common layer 2 protocol in use today. Ethernet uses CSMA/CD. I could go on but you can read more about it at http://www.javvin.com/protocolEthernet.html

Wireless, Wi-Fi or 802.11b/g/n/a exist on the first layer of the OSI model, as does cat5 cable which is usually referred to as Ethernet cable. Ethernet itself is a protocol that exists on the second layer of the OSI model. Because it exists on the second layer, anything on the first layer can provide a way for anything on the second layer to work. Therefore, Ethernet will work on cat5 cabling OR Wi-Fi.

192.168.0.0/16 is one of 3 private, "non-routable" address spaces for use on private networks and NOT to be used on the Internet.

Now if you really want to impress me, tell me how error detection is done on cat5 cable or tell me what CIDR is and why it exists.

ok, how about this, if you know your OSI model like you say you do, would you post the OSI model in order?

 

[mym6]

Personally I don't need to *know* the OSI model by heart, I just know that it exists so if I do need to know for some reason I know what to look at. In real world networking you really only need to know the bottom 4 layers because the rest has more to do with software running on the system in question. I learned a 4 layer network because my classes centered around Unix and Unix like systems.

Wikipedia provides a very good writeup of OSI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSI_model

 

[gamechaser001]

are you talking about 802.3? If so, wireless runs off of a whole different "protocol" 802.11, I don't really think that is a protocol though, I think they are considerd as a standard

 

[mym6]

are you talking about 802.3? If so, wireless runs off of a whole different "protocol" 802.11, I don't really think that is a protocol though, I think they are considerd as a standard

You might be on to something. 802.3 and 802.11 are different but they refer to the physical layer. There might be some terminology mix up on what is truly called ethernet.

 

[gamechaser001]

You might be on to something. 802.3 and 802.11 are different but they refer to the physical layer. There might be some terminology mix up on what is truly called ethernet.

About that, today in my networking lab, I asked my fellow classmates about this specific discussion, all of which say it is not a protocol, and during lunch today, I checked the glossary of my Network+ book, and this is right from the book, no altering

Ethernet-A networking technology originally developed at Xerox in the 1970s and improved by Digital Equipment Corporation, Intel, and Xerox. Ethernet, which is the most common form of network transmission technology, follows the IEEE 802.3 standard.

Ethernet_II-The original Ethernet frame type developed by Digital, Intel, and Xerox, before the IEEE began to standardize Ethernet. Ethernet_II contains a 2-byte type field to identify the upper-layer protocol contained in the frame. It supports TCP/IP, AppleTalk, IPX/SPX, and other higher-layer protocols.

Right from the book, word by word, letter by letter, and this book is used by most for a study guide for the Network+ portion of the CompTIA Certification, I wouldn't argue with it, it says it supports protocols, but does not say it is a protocol itself, I could also get into wireless, i just turned to the page where it talks about 802.11, but I think i'll stop here

This is just a way of saying I do know what I am talking about, and don't just argue to argue

As for it's place on the OSI model, I agree there

 

[viperjason]

You might be on to something. 802.3 and 802.11 are different but they refer to the physical layer. There might be some terminology mix up on what is truly called ethernet.

And why....blame IEEE. They describe both the physical layer and Data layer as "Ethernet".

Yes there is a Ethernet_II but that has been outdated and is now commonly called Ethernet.

Now to get really into the mix. IEEE 802 defines BOTH the physical and data link layer. Wifi and Wired both run IEEE 802 data link, but they use different IEEE 802 physical link.
The MAC and LLC layers of Layer 2 for Wired and Wireless ARE THE SAME.

So essientially, Wifi is a subset of the entire 802.x protocol more commonally called Ethernet.

And btw, Network+ and other such certifications dont mean jack ****. All it says is that you passed a test, it doesnt mean that you know jack **** about networking or hardware. Remember that before you start saying "I'm getting Network+, look at me, I'm great".

back to the topic:

The next question to as is....is the adapter for the GC just a wire or does it actually have hardware in it? If it does have hardware, then most likely neither the wifi or the USB lan will work. This is too bad as I was hoping it would.

It would also be nice if someone were to test it. No one has actually said, "yes I tried and Yes it fails". Just try it, would it really hurt to try? I have asked my friends and unfortunatly none of them bought a GC, so I would try....but alas, I would have to buy the game......Maybe I should just wait for the wii to bring out a version of Mario Kart.

 

[Wiitendo]

Some wii games will support gamecube controller if thats what yoyr asking, because they still make gamecube games they can't have a LAN gamecube game. A wii game with gamecube controller? yes. an online gamecube game? no.


-SSBB will be online, and VC also uses GC controller.

 

[viperjason]

Some wii games will support gamecube controller if thats what yoyr asking, because they still make gamecube games they can't have a LAN gamecube game. A wii game with gamecube controller? yes. an online gamecube game? no.


-SSBB will be online, and VC also uses GC controller.

LAN GC games exist.....that wasnt the point....please read the first post before posting.

 

[mym6]

About that, today in my networking lab, I asked my fellow classmates about this specific discussion, all of which say it is not a protocol, and during lunch today, I checked the glossary of my Network+ book, and this is right from the book, no altering


Right from the book, word by word, letter by letter, and this book is used by most for a study guide for the Network+ portion of the CompTIA Certification, I wouldn't argue with it, it says it supports protocols, but does not say it is a protocol itself, I could also get into wireless, i just turned to the page where it talks about 802.11, but I think i'll stop here

This is just a way of saying I do know what I am talking about, and don't just argue to argue

As for it's place on the OSI model, I agree there

Blah blah blah word by word. Don't get all arrogant and try to lecture me about some **** you read in a book.

 

[gamechaser001]

Blah blah blah word by word. Don't get all arrogant and try to lecture me about some **** you read in a book.

Arrogant? I'm not trying to be arrogant, i'm just saying that the book is based on networking, if somebody says something and the book says something else, sorry, but i'm going with the book, only because, in the book, they have something to back them up, people just saying something on the other hand, there's no proof, nothing, and if you think the information is wrong, remember, I didn't write it, talk with the person responsibe for writing the book. I'm just saying both my networking lab and the book disagree, how you take that, is up to you

@ viperjason-I agree with what you say up to a point

Network+ and other such certifications dont mean jack ****. All it says is that you passed a test, it doesnt mean that you know jack **** about networking or hardware. Remember that before you start saying "I'm getting Network+, look at me, I'm great".

Well, as a matter of fact, they do mean "jack ****". Businesses do look at those, so it gives you a higher chance of getting hired somewhere

 

[viperjason]

Well, as a matter of fact, they do mean "jack ****". Businesses do look at those, so it gives you a higher chance of getting hired somewhere

Higher chance of getting hired, sure. Higher chance that the applicant knows anything, NOPE. You may get hired and you may BS your way through the work getting stuff done, but it doesnt give you years of experience, or any know how to deal with anything more significant than the normal IS/IT question "Wheres my ANY key?"
So, to me and many companies I know that look for Skillz rather than certificates, they would most defiantly say that Network+ dont mean jack ****.

I have met many people that have these certifications, and you know what.....when I ran my own tech repair company, I was paid to come in and clean up their messes. This goes the same for A+ and all the other + certifications. I stopped doing tech repair because I got tired of people calling me to replace their ink cartridges. I have no certifications, and I am proud of that, heck I even helped a few get theirs.....they still call me and ask for help.

If you want to impress me, get Cisco certified (CCIE not CCNA). Then MAYBE, you MIGHT just impress me there.