🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <964@csun.UUCP> aeusesef@csun.UUCP (News Manager) writes:
>The following is reprinted without permission from the December 1987 issue
>of ``Los Angeles Computer Currents,'' page 39:
>
>``Apple is developing an upgraded Macintosh II based on Motorola's
>top-of-the-line 80386 microprocessor.  When it will be revealed is still
>...
>   -Wendy Woods, Newsbytes
>
>This is a wonderful example of the truly miraculous American Press.
>...But it is one of the funniest things I've ever read.. 
>
> Sean Eric Fagan          Office of Computing/Communications Resources

I saw a similar article somewhere (I no longer remember where, but it
could not have been *LOS ANGELES* Computer Currents).  Having previously
seen almost identical information in other publications where the only
difference was the identification number of the MPU (68030 instead of
80386), the nature of the error was rather obvious.  You can't seriously
expect presscritters to keep computer part numbers straight, especially
when they share so many digits.   The "80386" is the *best known* MPU
in all history--even complete computer illiterates have heard of it
in surprising numbers.  If it were a name instead of a number, Intel
would be having Xerox's, Coke's and Kleenex's problem of people using their
product names as generic terms!!  Now that I think of it, maybe that
is a better explanation for the above quote than the "same digits in
different order" hypothesis.  Hmmm.....


--alan@pdn