mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) (09/21/90)
I'm currently establishing a TCP/IP link into the Alternet for a site here in Rhode Island. So, I'm in the market for an Ethernet card. Which ones work extremely well with SCO TCP/IP? Which has the best features? Which one do you recommend? I will post a summary if there is enough interest. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan, President -- Small Business Systems, Inc. -- -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com -- Box 17220, Esmond, RI 02917 -- -- UUCP: ...uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 -- -- XENIX Archives: login: xxcp, password: xenix Index: ~/SOFTLIST --
romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) (09/26/90)
In article <3363@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >So, I'm in the market for an Ethernet card. Which ones work extremely well >with SCO TCP/IP? Which has the best features? Which one do you recommend? Try the Western Digital WD8003E ethernet card. It's cheap and performs very well. -- - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com "Do you accept Christ as your personal saviour?" "Well, I've already got AT&T as my long distance carrier."
swf@dbrus.unify.com (Steve Fulling) (09/27/90)
In article <3363@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: > So, I'm in the market for an Ethernet card. Which ones work extremely well > with SCO TCP/IP? Which has the best features? Which one do you recommend? My vote is for the Western Digital EtherCard PLUS16. We've had excellent performance from this ethernet card. Enjoy. Steve Fulling Unify Corporation, Sacramento, CA swf@unify.com
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/27/90)
In article <12781@asylum.SF.CA.US> romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) writes: >In article <3363@anomaly.sbs.com> mpd@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >>So, I'm in the market for an Ethernet card. Which ones work extremely well >>with SCO TCP/IP? Which has the best features? Which one do you recommend? > >Try the Western Digital WD8003E ethernet card. It's cheap and performs >very well. How does the performance of the 8 bit version compare with the 16 bit version (WD8013, I believe?) of this card? How much more system load does the 8 bit card generate. (I am surprised at the number of 8 bit ethernet cards out there, considering the fact that I would think very few of them are destined for 8088 based systems) What are the WD Etherlink cards? A completely different generation of card? -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) (09/28/90)
In article <1990Sep26.192939.17819@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >How does the performance of the 8 bit version compare with the 16 bit >version (WD8013, I believe?) of this card? How much more system load does >the 8 bit card generate. Yes, WD8013. The 16 bit card performs "noticeably" better in other applications I've used it in. I don't have any numbers. Drivers do need to specifically enable 16 bit mode on the 16 bit card, though. This is pretty easy to do, but if the driver doesn't do it, you won't get the performance increase. Also, the 16 bit card is support to support 0 or 1 wait states on the 16 bit bus, which is fewer than it can handle on the 8 bit bus. >(I am surprised at the number of 8 bit ethernet >cards out there, considering the fact that I would think very few of them >are destined for 8088 based systems) Actually, most ethernet cards until recently have been 8 bit. The first 16 bit card was the 3COM 3c505 intelligent card, which was a real dog. For a while, the only cards that were 16 bits were intelligent cards; I guess the manufacturers decided that they should have 16 bit I/O because they were positioned in the high end of the market. Also, network performance is more of an issue now than it was a few years ago. >What are the WD Etherlink cards? A completely different generation of >card? EtherLink usually refers to 3COM's 3C501; EtherLink II usually refers to 3COM's 3C503. I can't remember what glossy-name WD uses for their cards. -- - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com "Do you accept Christ as your personal saviour?" "Well, I've already got AT&T as my long distance carrier."
brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) (09/29/90)
In article <12787@asylum.SF.CA.US> romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) writes: >>What are the WD Etherlink cards? A completely different generation of >>card? > >EtherLink usually refers to 3COM's 3C501; EtherLink II usually refers >to 3COM's 3C503. I can't remember what glossy-name WD uses for their >cards. Whoops. I meant the Ethercard Plus or whatever is commonly advertised. Somebody once said it is compatible. What are the performance specs there? I would be interested in numbers on the 8003 vs. 8013. It's something like $170 for one vs $260 for the other. -- Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
romkey@asylum.SF.CA.US (John Romkey) (10/02/90)
In article <1990Sep29.041629.27169@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >Whoops. I meant the Ethercard Plus or whatever is commonly advertised. >Somebody once said it is compatible. What are the performance specs >there? The Ethercard series is the wd8003 and wd8013, with various letters on the end. There's wd8003e and wd8003ebt. I think the ebt is the one with nonvolatile ram in it that you can program in various settings, like the interrupt vector and i/o address, and it remembers them. I used one once and could never get it to remember them, though. If it's an 8 bit board, it's some variant of the WD8003, unlikely to have much difference in performance unless they managed to decrease the number of wait states on the memory. If it's 16 bits, it's a wd8013. There aren't so many options there. >I would be interested in numbers on the 8003 vs. 8013. It's something >like $170 for one vs $260 for the other. If I had the time right now, I'd try to come up with some numbers for you, but I'm too busy. Maybe someone else can do some performance comparisons. -- - john romkey USENET/UUCP: romkey@asylum.sf.ca.us Internet: romkey@ftp.com "Do you accept Christ as your personal saviour?" "Well, I've already got AT&T as my long distance carrier."
bob@wyse.wyse.com (Bob McGowen x4312 dept208) (10/04/90)
In article <12804@asylum.SF.CA.US> romkey@asylum.UUCP (John Romkey) writes: >In article <1990Sep29.041629.27169@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: >>Whoops. I meant the Ethercard Plus or whatever is commonly advertised. >>Somebody once said it is compatible. What are the performance specs >>there? > >The Ethercard series is the wd8003 and wd8013, with various letters on >the end. There's wd8003e and wd8003ebt. I think the ebt is the one ^^^^^^^^^ >with nonvolatile ram in it that you can program in various settings, SEE below ^^^^^^^ >like the interrupt vector and i/o address, and it remembers them. I >used one once and could never get it to remember them, though. If it's >an 8 bit board, it's some variant of the WD8003, unlikely to have much >difference in performance unless they managed to decrease the number >of wait states on the memory. > >If it's 16 bits, it's a wd8013. There aren't so many options there. > The situation is actually a little different from this. wd8003e Configured with jumpers, has 8K ram for buffering wd8003ebt Also configured with jumpers, has 8K or 32K buffer option, has ROM socket to allow support of diskless "workstations" (boot ofver network) wd8003eb Software configured, has 8K buffer My understanding is that the e and ebt versions have been discontinued, being replaced by the eb version. I am not familiar with the 16 bit cards so cannot comment on them. Bob McGowan (standard disclaimer, these are my own ...) Product Support, Wyse Technology, San Jose, CA ..!uunet!wyse!bob bob@wyse.com