14 Nov
1999
14 Nov
'99
5:47 p.m.
IIRC, it was the TCP/IP that didn't work well in the presence of DEC
hardware back then. If we put a bridge between the DEC stuff and the
SUN/APOLLO/HP... it seemed to work OK. There wasn't any NETWARE stuff there
either, since that was still early in NOVELL's lifespan. I use it here
because it lets me view the server as another drive or two and because I
can't find a smaller shell/driver set for DOS.
Dick
-----Original Message-----
From: Allison J Parent <allisonp(a)world.std.com>
To: Discussion re-collecting of classic computers
<classiccmp(a)u.washington.edu>
Date: Sunday, November 14, 1999 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: Effective Speed of 10BaseT
<Not just humor, Allison. Substantial accomodation
for DEC network hardwar
<had to be made back then ('86..'87) because DEC had features which would
<foul other hardware up if accomodation wasn't made. In order to keep from
Sounds like the features were those needed to do WAN and you wanted
something lighter. Generally at that time I was viewing most LANs as
broken or nearly so. The only protocals I remember that worked were
DECnet, TCP/IP and BANYAN vines for routable and Netware for local
PC stuff.
<bringing down the LAN, all software/configuration changes had to be made i
<advance of connecting the first DEC hardware. It didn't always bring down
<the LAN, but if that was your only worry, it certainly would.
my experience was non DEC hardware didn't work or was questionable. Though
the common Qbus NI (DEQNA) was known to be a poor performer in more ways
than one. Side effect of an old design even by late '87 standards.
Allison