Andrew theorizes....

>> This is all nice and accurate (but unattainable), but the real reason to
>> go with PCI is because its new and accepted and EISA is old and dying.
>> Many vendors are developing PCI products, few (if any) are developing 
>>  EISA products. Since PCI is more widely used, there are more products 
>> and they're less expensive....and PCI is 4X faster.
>> 
\
>This is why big server vendors, either don't have PCI at all, or only
>a couple PCI slots, but around 8 EISA slots?  The Compaq 4500 has 0
>(zero) PCI slots, and the HP LS has 2 or 3.  Interesting, if EISA
>is really dead, why these guys are making such a mistake?  Could it
>be that the Triton chipset is just too damn limiting for _real_ servers?

Of course Compaq and HP have PCI machines also......

Companies are producing these because the unix and novell vendors take 
so long to add things  like PCI and drivers, and EISA is older and there's 
lots of guys (like you) who are telling everyone how great it is. They also
began
developing them before PCI was widely accepted, plus EISA is  compatible
with ISA 
so you don't lose ISA slots with an EISA slot, so putting all EISA is not as
limiting as
all PCI.

I find it amazing that you're arguing against the obvious.

db
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Technologies, Inc.       http://www.etinc.com

Synchronous Communications Boards and Routers for
Discriminating Tastes. 56k to T1 and beyond. Frame
Relay, PPP, HDLC and X.25