Xref: utzoo comp.protocols.tcp-ip:14653 comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc:4769 comp.dcom.lans:7090 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!mckimg From: mckimg@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Geoffrey McKim) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.protocols.tcp-ip.ibmpc,comp.dcom.lans Subject: Re: Xircom has worst performance in PC Magazine tests Message-ID: <1991Jan29.023634.2098@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: 29 Jan 91 02:36:34 GMT References: <1991Jan24.003038.2853452@locus.com> Distribution: comp Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 32 In article <1991Jan24.003038.2853452@locus.com> dana@locus.com (Dana H. Myers) writes: >In article 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 =========================================================================