🚀 go-pugleaf

terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.) writes:

#In article <6156@npri6.npri.com>, richard@npri6.npri.com (Richard Head) writes:

#> Perhaps they are irrelevant to you.  Believe it or not, some people
#> (obviously not quite the established Computer Scientist you are)
#> like to make comparison to a REFERENCE STANDARD (SPECmarks), so they can
#> compare machines, regardless of vendor.  How can they do this with MicroVUPs?
#> (That's right, Einstein, tell me how many MicroVUPs an IBM RS6000 has!
#> That's exactly the information I'm looking for!)

#  At the risk of actually adding some _content_ to this flamefest 8-), I am
#interested in the performance of systems which run VMS because I want to buy
#them (if they perform well) and run VMS on them. If VMS ever becomes avail-
#able for the RS6000, then I'd be interested in knowing it's MicroVUP rating
#(which I assume DR&N would gladly supply).

Even if they're is a MicroVUP rating, I wouldn't use it.  The RS6000 and
VAX architectures are such different animals, I consider the "MicroVUP"
unit of measurement suspect when applied to this (or any foreign machine).
It would be comparing apples and oranges.  With SPECmarks, at least there
is a common test suite used to derive the performance rating.

#  If that's the market that DR&N is catering to, then I can see why they use
#the ratings that they do. There are some problems with the "VUP" rating sys-
#tem in general (but that doesn't stop DEC from using it) and with "MicroVUPs"
#in particular.  ([...] deleted)

I agree with all that, but at least the "VUP" wasn't invented as the
result of mental masturbation by some editor at DR.  "VUP" is more widely
used than "MicroVUP".  How many other publications besides DR use "MicroVUP"?

-- 
richard@npri6.npri.com  <Richard Head>