Re: Recommendation for Ethernet Network Interface Card to use with 560E

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: Andrew Scott Beals (bandy_at_ricochet.net)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 14:29:01 EDT


I'd have to echo the previous opinions. Not only can the dongle get broken,
but the RJ45 connector can break resulting in a cable that slips out of the
ether hub, or kipple can get within the connector path between the dongle and
the card resulting in something that looks like card failure.

However, I would stick with a Type II card [thin] just because I like to plug
other cards into my slots.

Yes, you'll pay a premium, but believe me, it's worth it.

/signed/

    I hate to buy a "competitor's" product, but--
    One broken dongle [pops out]
    One broken RJ45 [taped into hub now]
    One mysteriously failed $15.00 card [cruft in the connector path?]
    & Not Enough PCMCIA slots to go around

ps. I agree 100% on having ethernet built-in. To me, it's more important than
having an integral modem.

"Aaron W. Brown" wrote:

> The 560 is not Cardbus, right? Make sure you get a 10mbps (16 bit)
> PCMCIA card. I recommend the 3COM "xjack" models because there
> is no dongle to:
>
> -break (they're typically fragile)
> -get unplugged from the card while using (network connections
> disconnect/reset,
> and in some cases/cards this requires reboot)
> -forget to bring along
>
> Good luck,
> Aaron Brown.
>
> P.S. to IBM: notebooks should be built with 10/100 ethernet built in. This
> might
> add $20.00 to production cost. IRQ shortage is the only issue. Please fix
> that too :)
>
> Ken Rosenblatt wrote:
> >I'm planning to sign up for Mindspring's recently announced DSL service,
> >which requires that I have either a USB port (no such luck on my 560E)
> >or a "10 BASE-T Ethernet Network Interface Card (NIC)" available. I
> >guess I'm in the market for the latter.
> >
> >(snipped)


New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:55:58 EST