Re: USR TC vs. PM3 Test results

Karl Denninger (karl@Mcs.Net)
Wed, 21 May 1997 13:19:28 -0500

That's funny, our PM3s don't fail in this form at all.

Perhaps Livingston needs to revive that lawsuit.

--

-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, http://www.mcs.net/
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| NOW Serving 56kbps DIGITAL on our analog lines!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal


On Wed, May 21, 1997 at 06:45:16PM +0100, Phil Taylor wrote:
> Isn't it nice to see impartial test results :-)
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Phil
> 
> p.s. Could somebody please tell my PM3 that it is only allowed to have
> 17 ports in use without errors :-)
> 
> > ----------
> > From: 	PM Mailing List[SMTP:pmlist@cosmo.mitec.net]
> > Reply To: 	PM Mailing List
> > Sent: 	Wednesday, May 21, 1997 6:22 PM
> > To: 	portmaster-users@livingston.com
> > Subject: 	USR TC vs. PM3 Test results
> > 
> > 
> > U.S. Robotics Total Control Enterprise Network Hub
> >              and Livingston PortMaster 3
> >              Comparison Results Overview 
> > 
> > http://www.usr.com/business/30409_d.html
> > 
> > I thought this might prove to be an interesting link.  Any one have
> > any
> > comments?  According to the test results, the PM3 fails miserably
> > early on
> > while the Ascend 4004 performance degrades slowly, while the TC (of
> > course, this is on USR's home page) runs no problemo.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Thomas
> > 
> >