HANK@BARILVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) (04/19/88)
<I am not on the list so send updates directly to me>.
The Pc/Ip Scorecard
revision 3: 03/10/88
---------------------
We are the process of trying to decide which Pc/Ip
implementation would be the best. After asking around the
overwhelming reply I have received has been, "If you ever find a
comparison study, I would love to see it too". That is why I have
decided to create the Pc/Ip Scorecard.
This scorecard will be like a PC Magazine analysis of of hard
disks or printers. But I need help in filling in the boxes. So,
here is what the scorecard looks like. Please send me your replies
and I will integrate all answers and comments and publish the
finalized scorecard in the weeks to come.
|Revision 3: Any implementation that has not had any sort of comment
| made about it over the past 3 weeks has been removed.
| There are still plenty of gaps in the ScoreCard. Please
| help out.
This first table is called "Must Have".
Vendor TFTP POP ICMP SMTP VT- 3270 FTP ARP UDP max cost
100 FTP ($)
-----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Beame | Yes| No | Yes| No | | No | | Yes| Yes| | |
CMU | Yes| No | Yes| No | | No | No | Yes| Yes| | 0|
Excelan | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| 42k| 250|cpu
FTP | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes|160k| 400|cpu
FUSION | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| 40k| 300|
IBM | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes|114k| 300|cpu
KA9Q | No | No | Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| | 0|
MIT | Yes| No | Yes| No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| 5k| 50|site
NCSA | No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | No | No | No | 30k| 0|
Stanford | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| 50k| 100|site
SUN | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| 24k| 300|cpu
UB | | | Yes| | | | | Yes| Yes| | |
Wollongong | Yes| No | | | | | | | | 25k| 395|cpu
The "max FTP" column is for the fastest FTP to a Pc (*not* from)
seen by a user (in Kbytes/sec). It makes no difference in this table
which machine was at the other end (obviously the faster the machine
at the other end - the better).
The following table lists the most popular Ethernet cards
available and whether the Pc/Ip implementation works with the stated
card.
Vendor 3com Excelan Interlan UB WD 3Com UB NIC
3C501 EXOS205 NI5010 2273A 8003 3C523 PS/2
-----------+-----+--------+--------+-----+-----+-----+------+
Beame | Yes | No | No | No | | | |
CMU | Yes | No | Yes | No | | | |
Excelan | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
FTP | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
FUSION | Yes | No | Yes | No | Yes | No | No |
IBM | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
KA9Q | Yes | No | No | No | No | No | No |
MIT | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
NCSA | Yes | No | No | No | | | |
Stanford | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | |
Sun | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
UB | | | | | | | |
Wollongong | Yes | | | | | | |
This table is called the "Nice to Have" table. The functions
listed here are not mandatory but are useful in a Tcp/Ip
environment:
Vendor name time fing whoi NFS gate srce Net ping SLIP
srvr way code BIOS
-----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+
Beame | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | | | | | Yes| No | | |
CMU | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | No | Yes| | Yes| Yes| | |
Excelan | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes| No | No | | |
FTP | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| No | No | Yes| Yes| | |
FUSION | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
IBM | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
KA9Q | No | No | No | No | No | Yes| Yes| No | Yes| Yes| | |
MIT | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | Yes| No | Yes| No | | |
NCSA | Yes| No | No | No | No | No | Yes| | Yes| No | | |
Stanford | No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | No | | Yes| No | | |
Sun | Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| Yes| No | No | No | Yes| Yes| | |
UB | | | | | | | | | Yes| | | |
Wollongong | | | | | | | | | | | | |
FTP Software is OEMed to BICC ISOLAN, Fibronics, Proteon, cisco, Scope,
Spider Systems and Micom-Interlan.kzm@TWG.COM (04/26/88)
Hank,
As you know, my previous message to you announced the capabilities
of Release 3.2 of WIN/TCP for DOS. This release is just now finishing
its beta-testing and becoming available to customers, so it is now
appropriate to incorporate them into your scorecard. I apologise for
delaying its completion.
This release has the following capabilities :
Vendor TFTP POP ICMP SMTP VT- 3270 FTP FTP ARP UDP max cost
100 Clnt Srvr FTP ($)
-----------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+------+----+
Wollongong | Yes| No | Yes| Yes| Yes| No | Yes| No | Yes| Yes|193KBs| 395|
Vendor 3com Excelan Interlan UB WD 3Com UB NIC 3Com
3C501 EXOS205 NI5010 2273A 8003 3C523 PS/2 3C503
-----------+-----+--------+--------+-----+-----+-----+------+-----+
Wollongong | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | Yes |
Vendor -name-srvr time fing whoi NFS gate srce --NetBIOS-- ping SLIP
DNS IEN116 way code 1001/2 link
-----------+----+-----+----+----+----+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+----+
Wollongong | No | Yes | No | No | No | No | Yes| neg.| No | Yes | Yes| No |
Notes :
1. I have expanded a couple of columns where I felt there was some
ambiguity in the (necessarily abbreviated) column-header, for the specific
purpose of being more accurate. You will know what your column
headers mean, and thus are in a better position to judge which answer to
use in the non-expanded form.
2. The 3C501 has been the ubiquitous card up until 3Com's recent move
to replace it with the 3C503. If the 501 is still obtainable from a few
sources, it won't be for very much longer. I think this makes a strong
case for the 503's inclusion in your list.
3. The 193KBs is an average figure using a PS/2 Model 60 (we see occasional
transfers of over 200KBs).
Keith McCloghrie
The Wollongong Group.