Xref: utzoo comp.unix.sysv386:5221 comp.sys.att:11850
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!maverick.ksu.ksu.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.iastate.edu!sharkey!cfctech!norm
From: norm@cfctech.cfc.com (Norman J. Meluch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: Equinox -vs- AT&T 6386E
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.141511.6085@cfctech.cfc.com>
Date: 20 Feb 91 14:15:11 GMT
References: <989@pallas.athenanet.com>
Organization: Chrysler Financial Corp., Southfield, MI
Lines: 28

lbert359@pallas.athenanet.com (Lee Bertagnolli) writes:

{L} This is particularly frustrating.  The AT&T supplied IPC boards aren't worth
{L} a darn.

Lee.  Seems that both you and I have had our troubles with AT&T.

However, with release of ver 3.0 of their IPC software, I find AT&T's boards
to be quite useful for most any "PC" serial port application that you need.
Either from UNIX (tm) or via a network application (shared modem or printer).

I wouldn't go dogging them without specific examples.

To date we run HP Laserjets (500,II, & III), share spoolers, serial to
parallel converters, modems, and Okidata printers off our IPC 802 boards
with  *absolutely* no troubles.

Although abit awkward in size, the 802 board performs quite well and I am
very pleased with them.  I have not had any experience with the (smaller
EPORTS-like) 900 series of the IPC boards, but rumor has been that they
perform equally well.

						- Norm.
-- 
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Norman J. Meluch ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| Mail: norm@cfctech.cfc.com           Fax:(313)948-4975  Voice:(313)948-4809 |
| Note: The opinions expressed here are in no way to be confused with valid   |
|_______ideas or corporate policy.____________________________________________|