From owner-freebsd-current Thu May 7 14:32:38 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA09553 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:32:38 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from rockvax.rockefeller.edu (rockvax.rockefeller.edu [129.85.1.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA09538 for ; Thu, 7 May 1998 14:32:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dna.rockefeller.edu) Received: from dna.rockefeller.edu (dna.rockefeller.edu [129.85.17.125]) by rockvax.rockefeller.edu (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id RAA10716; Thu, 7 May 1998 17:32:24 -0400 (EDT) Received: by dna.rockefeller.edu (RAA16674); Thu, 7 May 1998 17:31:44 -0400 From: "Dan Ts'o" Message-Id: <199805072131.RAA16674@dna.rockefeller.edu> Subject: Re: Intel Etherexpress PRO/100+ PCI To: benedict@echonyc.com (Snob Art Genre) Date: Thu, 7 May 1998 17:31:42 -0400 (EDT) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: from "Snob Art Genre" at May 7, 98 03:11:01 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > As I understand it, the PRO/100+ is just a PRO/100B, but fabricated > differently -- they figured out how to do it with one less chip. But > the interface is the same. An Intel support engineer told me that, although very similar, the Pro/100+ and Pro/100B are not identical at the software/driver level and that minor changes would probably be necessary to fully support the Pro/100+. He said that (at the time), since the Pro/100B was still on the market that if I was concerned, I should get the Pro/100B instead to avoid problems. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message