🚀 go-pugleaf

>	What it comes down to is Intel has FINALLY made a good chip, it
>DOES outperform the 68020 at equal clock speed.   I am more interested in 
>the next generation the 486 vs the 030, that should be very interesting.

Having just returned from Macworld Expo, I have a different
perspective on this entire debate.  It may be true that the 386 is a
"faster chip", but faster is not necesssarily better.  The key to all
computers is the quality of the application software (whatever the
application is).  If you happen to be crunching numbers, or doing
something that is really computationally intensive, then maybe you
really do care if the the 386 is faster than the '020 at the same
clock speed.  Most people are only concerned with getting their work
done as quickly as possible.  For a good many people, machines "as
slow as the Mac II" running software like Hypercard (no jibes about
the quasi multi-tasking Multifinder), are much better tools for
getting their work done, than "fast machines like the Deskpro 386"
running whatever.  I don't mean to demean the engineering and
scientific markets, as I'm at a school where > 60% of the students are
engineers.  But even here, I think that many students who are using
VaxStation II's running 4.3BSD with X would give them up if they could
have Mac II's with the current generation of Mac software, because the
applications are that much better.  Fast hardware is nice, but I'd
rather have second place hardware and first place software.

					Ted Leung

					MIT/Project Athena

Disclaimer: My employers don't even CARE about personal computers.....