Xref: utzoo comp.sys.ibm.pc:17494 comp.dcom.lans:1626
Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!uflorida!beach.cis.ufl.edu!seeger
From: seeger@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Charles Seeger)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.dcom.lans
Subject: Re: Info on WD EtherCard PLUS
Message-ID: <16774@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU>
Date: 27 Jul 88 15:53:25 GMT
References: <128@pbseps.UUCP> <22466@amdcad.AMD.COM>
Sender: news@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU
Reply-To: seeger@beach.cis.ufl.edu (Charles Seeger)
Organization: UF EE Department
Lines: 21

In article <22466@amdcad.AMD.COM> phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) writes:
>In article <128@pbseps.UUCP> rdp@pbseps.PacBell.COM (Richard Perlman) writes:
>>NOW:  What are we missing here?  Is there anything we should know
>>about the WD board, the combination of board & PC-NFS, our net
>
>Usually you get what you pay for. In this case, you get a very high
>quality network at a rock bottom price. We use this combination with
>great success here. The WD board is fast, PC-NFS has lots of nice
>features (though it is not perfect) and the two play nicely together. 

Glad to hear that the WD is so good (got a few on order).

>We believe the LANCE is a better chip than what WD uses but you can't

Really?
The manual for my Chipcom Ethermodem derates its performance when driven
by the Lance, but mentions no degradation for any other implementations.
Have also seen criticism of the Lances in Sun 3/50s and 3/60s.
Any comments or explanations?

Chuck (still working on a neat ~/.signature) Seeger