> The 3/260 has a significant advantage over the 3/60; it has a
> write-back VAC.  (Course, it really almost has to have one, otherwise
> you'd feel the pain of VME memory :-)

I did feel that pain; there was a time when I used (well, tried to use)
NetBSD/sun3 on my /260s before the cache was supported.  And let me
tell you, they were *slow*.  I'd even say a /260 with its cache turned
off might be a contender for the "slowest NetBSD machine" award, though
you have to either tweak the kernel or use a very old version.

>>> Even the very slowest machine NetBSD runs on (which is probably one
>>> of the HP 9000/300 boxen, a 68020/16.66667 box (I have one, a
>>> 9000/319 I think it is))
> The HP 9000/320 is by far the slowest of the 300 series ([...]).

> From the conversation I had w/ Mouse at the San Jose IETF, he has a
> 320, and yes, it's one of the slowest machines that runs NetBSD; I
> think the 11/780 is slower, though.

I also had someone point out that one of the Amigas is a 68020 running
at about 14.3MHz.

If NetBSD/vax supports the 750 or 730, they'd be slower than a 780,
especially once I/O is also factored in.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B