>Have you looked at the date when this article was written?
>
>Do you find it surprising that I would change my position when better
>and more complete information becomes available that contradicts
>my earlier held view?
>

And how exactly does the fact that
an article was written in 2000 make
any statements about how the i386,
i486, and i586 were initially marketed
less true? If anything they should be
more even more reliable than
statements made today, since now we
have hindsight, as well as time
futzing up our recollections.

>I was mistaken when I wrote that. Deerfield never targeted the desktop.

OK, fair enough. And to at least
attempt to stay on topic, I found
your current article a good read.
Nice work.

jarboe