>> On Tue, 10 Mar 1998, Jason Thorpe wrote:
>> 
>> > From the conversation I had w/ Mouse at the San Jose IETF, he has a[n HP
>> > 9000] 320, and yes, it's one of the slowest machines that runs NetBSD; I
>> > think the 11/780 is slower, though.
>> 
>> Well, we also run on the 11/750, which is quite noticeably slower
>> than a 780. We might even have 11/730 support by now, which would
>> probably take the cake pretty easily.
>
>_How_ slow are those three? I just want to mention that NetBSD has been run
>on 68020+68881 Amigas, at a clock rate of err... 14 MHz? or 28? Hubert?
>
>Maybe we should run some dhrystone on all of them ;-)

Well, while you're down there, you should probably include the Macintosh
II (68020,
16mhz +68551 PMMU) which is the slowest of the NetBSD/Mac69k systems and
is equivalent to the HP 9000/319 in raw clock speed.

My gut feeling is that one should also include the bottom of the i386
line, the
386SX16 which, I assume, is supported by NetBSD. A couple of years back,
I
seem to recall running one under BSD/OS 1.2 and getting dhrystones
equivalent
to the Sun 3/160 that I was supporting at work.

<<<John>>>

P.S. Since I may have a chance to get a 3/80 in the near future, I was
wondering- 
How is the serial port performance on the 3/80, relative to that of a
Sparc 2?