Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mcnc!ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!hp-sdd!hplabs!decwrl!schizo.dec.com!arnaud
From: arnaud@schizo.dec.com.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: PC Lan Comparison
Message-ID: <8711201440.AA19741@decwrl.dec.com>
Date: Fri, 20-Nov-87 09:40:26 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.8711201440.AA19741
Posted: Fri Nov 20 09:40:26 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Nov-87 06:52:26 EST
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Lines: 16

>   I too agree that the Novell report was an unusually useful response
>to a bingo card.... It is very comprehensive. It covers the majority of
>the hardware and software vendors that were available when it was written
>very objectively, and the information is well organized.
>   However, I had great difficulty believing their hardware section, which
>repeatedly says that DMA interface boards are slower than others. Unless there 
>is something I don't know, DMA is much faster than interrupt driven hardware.
>I have not had the time or the resources to research their claims, but
>common sense would indicate that this claim of theirs is way off base.
>   This inaccuracy made me wonder what else was wrong in their report. Anyone
>care to comment ?

Novell is right, DMA on an AT is slower thatn PIOs, the 286 will move data 
faster than the 8237 DMA controller.
The Apollo DN3000 has a PC-AT type bus, and the Token Ring Adapter uses
68020 PIOs to move the data.