Answer: B. Because a 32-bit bus mastering NIC with additional onboard RAM gives you about as much speed as you can get when attaching a server to a cable segment, it definitely produces the required result of handling network traffic with reasonable response time. This also helps to guarantee that the server won't slow the network down. But since it would be cheaper (in fact half the cost) to use plain-vanilla NICs on the relatively idle segments, this solution fails to keep the hardware costs of a minimum. Thus the correct answer is b, which produces the required result but only one of the optional desired results.
Answer: B. The advertising firm's decision to use Category 5 wiring and hubs, presumably with 100 Mbps Ethernet, certainly delivers the required result, of providing a network that operates at speeds of up to 100 Mbps. Of all twisted pair cable varieties, however, Cat5 is the most expensive, so the cabling will not be as cheap as it gets—but to meet the 100 Mbps requirement, Cat5 is required, so this is one of those Microsoft questions that requires careful reading. The exact wording is "as inexpensive as it can be"—as long as you buy a reasonably-priced grade of Cat5 cable, this requirement cannot help but be met, despite appearances. As for ease of installation, only someone on-site can decide what's easy and what's not. However, professional TP cable installation usually requires wall plates and routing cables through ceilings and into walls. These fail to qualify as easy, unless you're a full-time cable installer. Therefore, the answer to this question is b, since the required result and only one of the optional desired results is met.
Answer: B. Berts’ quest for mobile computing for its field engineers depends on use of cellular modems to connect remote computers with the organization's LAN. Because the plan also includes encryption fees, even though the traffic is broadcast, it's safe to assume that encryption makes eavesdropping a waste of time. But since cellular technologies are not the cheapest, the solution fails to meet the requirement that it be as cheap as possible. Thus the answer is b, yet again, since the required result and one of the optional desired results is met.
Answer: A (5 pts) or C (3 pts). The real issue with Bob's PC is that it is painfully slow. This will affect the network only when he's transmitting data, however. Therefore replacing his NE1000 with an NE2000 is probably the most practical solution (answer a). Replacing the card with an EISA version does no good because an EISA card won't work in an ISA slot (although ISA cards can work in EISA slots, it doesn't work the other way around). If Bob generates a lot of traffic on the network, however slowly, answer c. will indeed isolate other users from his influence; in that case, this answer makes the most sense. Since you can't replace Bob's old PC with a new one, a PCI card won't work in his machine, either, so answer d. is completely incorrect. A is more practical than C.
Answer: A. Dealing with interrupt conflicts gets to be a way of life when installing NICs, especially for heavily-loaded end user machines. The only real solution to the problem that doesn't diminish the machine's current capabilities is to follow the strategy outline in answer a, and try to change the IRQ for some other device, to free up an IRQ that the NIC can use. Answer b implies that whatever devices can't be made to work can be omitted, which the user may not appreciate. Answer c may work, but the PC Card NIC will still need an IRQ, too—you may be spending more money, just to wind up with the same problem you were trying to solve. Answer d. limits the speed of the network attachment to serial port speeds; unless you spend real money ($150 or more) for a high-speed serial interface, you'll wind up with a network attachment that runs significantly slower than a NIC attachment. This is a solution that's only worth considering if all other options have been exhausted and the machine still can't be connected to the network.