🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6094@npri6.npri.com>, richard@npri6.npri.com (Richard Head) writes:
> jms@mrsvax.mis.arizona.edu (Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem) writes:
> 
> The only possible good thing I can think of that may arise from this 
> transition is if Digital Review would only stop using the brain-dead
> term "MicroVUPs".  Use VUPs of SPECmarks or whatever.  The use of
> MicroVUPs was (I think) started and propagated by Digital Review, and
> as far as I can tell, they are the only ones that use it.
> -- 

  From my point of view, Digital Review has for some years made a serious
  attempt to evaluate cpu/floating point/(and more recently)graphics perfor-
  mance on a wide variety of machines.  They have also attempted to separately
  evaluate i/o performance on different DEC-compatible disk/controller combin-
  ations.  So what's the big deal about the units they use ? "Brain dead" ?
  What is a "VUP" anyway ?  For a long time, the uVAX II had the largest in-
  stalled base of any VAX.  It made good sense to state relative performance
  in uVAX terms.  Continuing to use it as a unit is no more irrational than
  using the VAX 780 (in VUPS and SPECmarks).  Digital Review gives the SPEC-
  marks for the systems they review as well.  Should they rerun them ???
 
  greg pavlov
  pavlov@fstrf.org