HP> Epson was the first to do 720 dpi in their Stylus line.
It may be worth noting that because the ink "splatters" some with inkjets, 
the resolution on a 720 dpi inkjet is worse than a 300 dpi laser.  On the 
inkjet the "dot" size is a lot larger even though the spacing is closer.  
(The dots overlap a lot.)
OTHOH, this overlap seems to help color uniformity -- color is better on the 
higher dpi printers.  While you won't get laser "crispness" in an inkjet, 
inkjets are good enough for a lot of
uses where cost and color are considerations.
HP> CPU speed - Beyond 133-MHz, you are getting diminishing
HP> returns, as the external clock speed (66 MHz) is still the
HP> same for 133/166/200. I'd suggest -166 over the -200, as
HP> there isn't substantial perf diff, and the -200 costs ...
AMEN!  All the computer newbies I know get wrapped around the  axle on CPU 
speed.  Used to be they would overbuy CPU and underbuy RAM, but the RAM price 
crash has pretty well cured  that.  (Is anyone still running WIN 95 with less 
than 32 MB, or NT with under 64 mb?)  A $1200 motherboard/CPU will give you 
only a 40% performance bump over a $210 motherboard/CPU. Not much bang for 
the buck.
Haven't looked at namebrand systems for several years, but it
used to be you could find some pretty silly configurations. E.g. Compac sold 
a lot of 486DX2-66 systems with NO L2 cache! While this only shows as about a 
5% Norton S.I. loss, (Norton S.I. is small program that the CPU L1 cache 
handles well) the real-life performance goes down the commode.  A real 
mmer.
As you pointed out, many things besides CPU clock, e.g., bus speed, go into 
system performance.  And the bus speed may actually be slower on a faster 
CPU!  (E.g. Intel Pentium 150 vs Pentium 133)
It's not how big your CPU is, it's how you use it... ... OFFLINE 1.50 
--- InterEcho 1.19
---------------