[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: LanceGS vs. Uther?

Subject: Re: LanceGS vs. Uther?
From: Warren Ernst <wernst@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 10:01:32 -0800 (PST)
Complaints-to: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-info: s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-host=63.73.69.132; posting-account=Zkce0woAAABD8zN13UpVjtJGmlLd1nb8
Newsgroups: comp.sys.apple2
Organization: http://groups.google.com
References: <5f10da17-2b86-49d5-9782-8bd3e14edd1b@62g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>
User-agent: G2/1.0
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.sys.apple2:32801

On Feb 22, 8:59 am, aiiad...@gmail.com wrote:
> http://www.downloads.reactivemicro.com/Public/Apple%20II%20Items/Hard...
>
> http://a2retrosystems.com/images/complete_front.jpg
>
> LanceGS looks like a way more complicated circuit than Uther...
>
> How do they compare ?  Does one have more features, speed,
> programmabiliity
> than the other?
>
> Rich

I didn't know the LanceGS was even still available.

Still, the Uthernet works great with all three Ethernet-aware Apple II
programs: Contiki, Marinetti, and ADPro. Why use anything else?

-Warr

Follow-Ups:
- Re: LanceGS vs. Uther?
  - From: aiiadict@gmail.com

References:
- LanceGS vs. Uther?
  - From: aiiadict@gmail.com

Prev by Date: LanceGS vs. Uther?
Next by Date: Re: LanceGS vs. Uther?
Previous by thread: LanceGS vs. Uther?
Next by thread: Re: LanceGS vs. Uther?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread