>ISA is clocked at 8.3MHz, PCI at 33MHz. ISA has more CPU overhead too.
Yes and ISA does 16MB/sec (thats 16 megabytes per second) 10 base T is 10
Mega BITS a second>>>>>big difference. So ISA should more than well cover
Quote:>This card is 10bT if I recall correctly, so it won't move more than
>about 850KB/s. If you want 3MB/s you'll have to go 100bT which means
There are ISA and EISA 100bT cards around
>Are you sure the slot is defective? My PCI slots 4&5 share an IRQ which
>could cause weird behavior under some circumstances. Other boards that
>have built-in SCSI, sound, etc are known to share IRQ's with particular
>> I discovered (by trying to use it) that the last unused PCI slot in my
>> system is defective. This forced me to add an ISA NIC (a 3Com 3C509B)
>> instead of the PCI device I had planned on.
>> The ISA NIC is working well. I wonder, though, what the drawbacks are
>> compared to a PCI NIC. This device is just attached to a cable modem,
>> which suggests that it will never be called upon to move more than
>> 3MB/second anyway.
Thats right, does the cable modem run on 100 base T ????? or 10 base T
So a 10base T card will more than do you, unless you want to throw away good
So how can there be any drawbacks
Quote:>> Is interrupt latency higher with an ISA NIC? Increased CPU use? The
>> initial install involves more work because you have to specify the IRQ
>> I/O port address range. Now that the installation is done, though, I'm
>> interested in runtime gotchas.
The initial install (if you turn off the PnP on the card) deosn't need any
parameters passed at all with these cards !!!
>> Thank you.
>> ***** Steve Snyder *****
>direct replies substitute timothymoore for user name
>"Everything is permitted. Nothing is forbidden."
> WS Burroughs.