🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Oct.16.15.09.26.1988.269@zydeco.rutgers.edu> latzko@zydeco.rutgers.edu (Alexander Latzko) writes:
>Having some netware and a large amount to IP around here ( Rutgers U )
>has lead me to some astonishing conclusions:
>
>1> Boards which do TCP on board are generally a waste of time and
>2> The Micom/Interlan Gateway lists for $3995 and has performance
>limitations.  You also probably don't want to use it in anything
>smaller than a 386.
>3> Packet drivers are available and work well.  Basically this will
>let you use your favorite TCP and Novell on the same workstation 
>with a much less expensive card since the software does the work.

Could you provide us with some explanation of these statements?

Especially (1) seems to be the direct opposite of what everybody claims: that
the host OS can be relieved of a lot of work with TCP on a board.

	Danny Backx
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 Danny Backx                            |  mail: Danny Backx
 Tel: +32 16 200656 x 3544              |        Katholieke Universiteit Leuven 
 Fax: +32 16 205308                     |        Dept. Computer Science
 E-mail: dannyb@kulcs.UUCP              |        Celestijnenlaan 200 A
         ... mcvax!prlb2!kulcs!dannyb   |        B-3030 Leuven
         dannyb@blekul60.BITNET         |        Belgium