From owner-freebsd-net Wed Nov 1 17:41: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from server1.huntsvilleal.com (server1.huntsvilleal.com [63.147.8.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 76C6337B4CF for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:41:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from Spaz.HuntsvilleAL.COM (spaz.huntsvilleal.com [63.147.8.31]) by server1.huntsvilleal.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA00651 for ; Wed, 1 Nov 2000 19:08:44 -0500 Received: from localhost (kris@localhost) by Spaz.HuntsvilleAL.COM (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id BAA54738 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:40:29 GMT (envelope-from kris@catonic.net) Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2000 01:40:29 +0000 (GMT) From: Kris Kirby X-Sender: kris@spaz.huntsvilleal.com To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Quality / Issues with 3C595 Message-ID: X-Tech-Support-Email: bofh@catonic.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org What is our level of support for the 3C595 Fast Etherlink III (10/100) versus the 3C905 Fast Etherlink IV? I understand that the 3C905 is somewhat equal to the Intel EtherExpress PRO/100 (fxp), but I'm looking at some new servers that came equip'd with what I've thought to be a ISA NIC on steroids.... ----- Kris Kirby, KE4AHR | TGIFreeBSD... 'Nuff said. | ------------------------------------------------------- "Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message