nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (01/22/91)
The Xircom Pocket LAN Adapter had the worst performance of three pocket lan adapters in a PC Magazine review, published in the February 12, 1991 issue. Adapter mbps p.LAN 1.1 D-Link 1.07 Xircom 0.95 Please don't buy Xircom products. They used some of my software in violation of its copyright. Write for details... -- --russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) FAX 315-268-7600 It's better to get mugged than to live a life of fear -- Freeman Dyson I joined the League for Programming Freedom, and I hope you'll join too.
dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) (01/24/91)
In article <NELSON.91Jan21132425@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes: >The Xircom Pocket LAN Adapter had the worst performance of three pocket >lan adapters in a PC Magazine review, published in the February 12, 1991 >issue. > > Adapter mbps > p.LAN 1.1 > D-Link 1.07 > Xircom 0.95 > >Please don't buy Xircom products. They used some of my software in >violation of its copyright. Write for details... While Russ may have a beef with Xircom over software copyright, the performance of the Xircom adapter is within 85% of the best in this comparison. I wouldn't call this bad performance. -- * Dana H. Myers KK6JQ | Views expressed here are * * (213) 337-5136 | mine and do not necessarily * * dana@locus.com | reflect those of my employer *
mckimg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey McKim) (01/29/91)
In article <1991Jan24.003038.2853452@locus.com> dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes: >In article <NELSON.91Jan21132425@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu (aka NELSON@CLUTX.BITNET) writes: >>The Xircom Pocket LAN Adapter had the worst performance of three pocket >>lan adapters in a PC Magazine review, published in the February 12, 1991 >>issue. >> >> Adapter mbps >> p.LAN 1.1 >> D-Link 1.07 >> Xircom 0.95 >> >>Please don't buy Xircom products. They used some of my software in >>violation of its copyright. Write for details... > > While Russ may have a beef with Xircom over software copyright, >the performance of the Xircom adapter is within 85% of the best in this >comparison. I wouldn't call this bad performance. > First of all, Russ said that it had the "worst" performance, which indeed is a true statement, no matter how you look at it. Second of all, I hope that most of us will hold solidarity with Russ on this one -- there are countless of us out here who are grateful for his packet drivers, and wouldn't consider buying from a company that violated his generous copyrights. ========================================================================= Geoffrey W. McKim Internet: mckimg@ucs.indiana.edu UCS Networks/LAN Group BITNET: mckimg@iuamber Indiana University Bloomington 855-4643 =========================================================================
GOLDSTN@MAINE.BITNET (Michael E. Goldstein) (01/31/91)
I bought my Xircom adaptor a few weeks before I read Russ's complaint. Now, a wave of guilt rolls over me every time I take my laptop out of its bag and hook it up. Is there a LAN-confessional around here somewhere?...... M. Goldstein
ian@unipalm.uucp (Ian Phillipps) (02/04/91)
GOLDSTN@MAINE.BITNET (Michael E. Goldstein) writes: >I bought my Xircom adaptor a few weeks before I read Russ's >complaint. Now, a wave of guilt rolls over me every time >I take my laptop out of its bag and hook it up. Is there >a LAN-confessional around here somewhere?...... No, but Xircom have a new packet driver, claimed to be unrelated to Russell's. Ask them for one.