I really like the NetGear's over the Intel's. The nerwer netgears use a different chipset than what they originals did (original was a Digital 2114x). I've had a netgear point me to a faulty switch that would lose its port link for very breif periods. Under normal circumstances I never would have know it to be a problem but the tulip driver with a 2114x chip will report when the link heartbeat fails--even if only for a fraction of a second. Attention to details like this sold me on those cards. The newer ones with a different chip still uses the tulip driver but I havnt tested to see if the heartbeat sense is still there. I've had consistantly seen a bit lower performace with intel cards doing a samba file xfer from linux to 98 when compared with the netgear solution. For the average Joe there's not much of a difference but when you look at $20 vs $80 for *at worst* a comprable performing card, i choose the netgear. My .02 worth... At 05:38 PM 11/21/00 -0600, you wrote: >On Tue, 21 Nov 2000, Callum Lerwick wrote: >> Why 3com or Intel? They're pathetically overpriced. I'm personally a fan >> of Linksys, they go for around $15 these days. Netgear goes for about >> the same, though I don't think they have the guaranteed compatibility of >> Linksys. You can get off brand cards with the same chipsets as Netgear >> for $10... >> >> The price of networking hardware these days just blows my mind... > >I've had the exact opposite luck; NetGear's worked everywhere I try >it, and I've had nothing but compatibility problems with LinkSys.. > >-- >Nate Carlson <natecars at real-time.com> | Phone : (952)943-8700 >http://www.real-time.com | Fax : (952)943-8500 > > >_______________________________________________ >tclug-list mailing list >tclug-list at lists.real-time.com >https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list >