> The real question though is that if an ISA bus is provided, will
> a motherboard solution provide so much extra gain in performance to
> justify not using an ISA card?
I believe cost favours the m/board approach.
> Also, there are many problems getting a reliable Ethernet sub-system
> (as some here have suggested). Do we really want to get involved
> with debugging Ethernet hardware?
> I have two machines at home: a 386/33 and 486/33, connected by Ethernet.
I think many of those initially involved will have an x86 based PC
box. This is an argument in favor of ethernet on board, because
it should allow using networking during the port.
> Assuming that a user's 'riscy' workstation is using motherboard video
> and SCSI, then the only heavy user of the ISA bus left is the Ethernet
Relying on ISA for ethernet opens configuration issues that we can avoid.
Another question is:
10BaseT or 10Base2 or AUI?
I think the NatSemi DP8390 would give us good bang for our buck. A dip
version (48-pin DIP) is available. Optional population (again) is a
reasonable idea for the buyers, but is going to become intractible for
The DP83905/DP83902 from NatSemi has en/dec built in for ease of use with
10BaseT. 10Base2 still requires a separate interface chip (DP8392).
Tim Braun |
Ubitrex Corporation | Voice: 204-942-2992 ext 228
1900-155 Carlton St | FAX: 204-942-3001
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3C 3H8 | Email: firstname.lastname@example.org