From owner-freebsd-current Sat May 9 22:38:48 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id WAA17318 for freebsd-current-outgoing; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:38:48 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from antipodes.cdrom.com ([210.145.37.178]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id WAA17302 for ; Sat, 9 May 1998 22:38:43 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@antipodes.cdrom.com) Received: from antipodes.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antipodes.cdrom.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA00724; Thu, 7 May 1998 18:37:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199805080137.SAA00724@antipodes.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97 To: "Dan Ts'o" cc: benedict@echonyc.com (Snob Art Genre), freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Intel Etherexpress PRO/100+ PCI In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 07 May 1998 17:31:42 EDT." <199805072131.RAA16674@dna.rockefeller.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 18:37:48 -0700 From: Mike Smith 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. The 100B is actually fairly hard to get, and the 100+ works just fine. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message