Xref: utzoo comp.sys.mac:10960 comp.sys.intel:384 comp.sys.m68k:668 rec.humor:8952 Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!rochester!cornell!uw-beaver!mit-eddie!rutgers!mtune!codas!usfvax2!pdn!alan From: alan@pdn.UUCP (Alan Lovejoy) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.m68k,rec.humor Subject: Re: Article in Computer Currents (Dec 87) Message-ID: <1962@pdn.UUCP> Date: 5 Jan 88 16:48:32 GMT References: <964@csun.UUCP> Reply-To: alan@pdn.UUCP (0000-Alan Lovejoy) Organization: Paradyne Corporation, Largo, Florida Lines: 30 Keywords: 80386 68030 Apple Intel Motorola 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