Talk:NE1000

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Existance[edit]

The last paragraph of this article sums up my thoughts as to why this article should exist: these cards hold a notable place in the developmental history of network technology. EJSawyer 21:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the NE2000 story a number of times, but haven't been able to verify all the details. For example, where, exactly, is the "reference design" in the National literature? The datasheets for the DP8390 don't include anything like complete schematics. I found some later application notes that do have reference designs that seem close (National AN-842, "The Design and Operation of a Low Cost, 8-Bit PC-XT Compatible Ethernet Adapter Using the DP83902", AN-752, "DP83902EB-AT PC-AT Compatible DP83902 ST-NICTM Ethernet Evaluation Board") but neither appear to be the smoking gun. Stephen A. Edwards 9:00, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Picture found ;)[edit]

Electron9 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?[edit]

Should this be renamed to NE1000? As the earlier board, that's the one with the real innovation to it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No DMA[edit]

The article contained a claim that the NE2000 used/could use DMA. It used the source for the NetBSD driver to support this claim. If you look at the comments describing the function's purpose in that source, you'll see it exclusively says "using Programmed I/O". It does refer to DMA in inline comments. That's because DMA is the term used in the 8390 datasheet to refer to the mechanism by which the controller transfers data to and from the buffer memory; "local DMA" when referring to data passing between MAC and buffer, and "remote DMA" for data passing between buffer and host system. Whether the latter is actually implemented using DMA as the host sees it, is an implementation detail the datasheet only considers briefly. It notes that the architecture makes it possible to do so. It is a possibility, but not necessary, and not done on the NE2000. Think about it: if it did use ISA DMA, which channel does it use? That's a basic configuration aspect of an ISA card, and necessary to know when allocating resources. If it were not configurable, at least you'd need to know it to avoid allocating the same DMA channel to another card. You'll be hard pressed to find documentation saying an NE2000 occupies DMA channel 1 or 3 or whatever, because it simply does not. Digital Brains (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But you've also stripped out one of the other refs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're right, I'm sorry. I've restored it. Digital Brains (talk) 14:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NE2000 section needs editing[edit]

This os23museum article tears down a NE2000 statement in this Wikipedia article, which I found at this ycombinator post. Someone please fix this wikipedia article. BTW, I'm not the author of the os2museum article!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this has already been taken care of. The only remaining question I see is whether there was ever an NE2000 without AUI. Our article claims, without support, this was added in a B rev. Others seem to say it was always there. ~Kvng (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]