Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-ncis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!gatech!udel!udccvax1!udccpyr1!sigurd
From: sigurd@pyr1.acs.udel.EDU (Sigurd Andersen)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.appletalk
Subject: Re: Help: Localtalk schemes
Summary: Alternatives to LocalTalk
Keywords: LocalTalk FlashTalk AppleTalk Farallon Dayna
Message-ID: <2632@udccvax1.acs.udel.EDU>
Date: 5 Jan 89 15:55:20 GMT
References: <8901041822.AA00757@berkelium.ecn.purdue.edu> <3370@bgsuvax.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@vax1.acs.udel.EDU
Reply-To: sigurd@pyr1.acs.udel.EDU (Sigurd Andersen)
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 14

I have used Apple LocalTalk and Farallon PhoneNet cable.  Both seem to
work fine.  PhoneNet permits more flexibility and is cheaper, assuming
you're making your own cables (which I'm doing with cables, ends, and
tool to put ends on cables all purchased at Radio Shack - works fine).
Although I haven't used the PhoneNet clones, the impression I have from
reading various nets is that the quality is poorer than Farallon's
products, so that any savings are not worth the trouble they can cause.

As for faster products - I talked to someone at Dayna a few weeks ago.
He said that neither their products (DaynaTALK for Mac & for PC) nor
the competition's (FlashTalk, etc.) are shipping nor will they be for
another month or more.  Once they are out, I'll be curious to find out
how the max speed increase (3-6x LocalTalk's 230K bps) affects actual
performance - for single transfers, and in multi-user networks.