🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <53@gnome.cs.cmu.edu> hugo@gnome.cs.cmu.edu (Peter Su) writes:
>BYTE is a rag, and I have no respect for the bozos that put it out.
>
>Anyway, I wouldn't trust their benchamarks (or the ones in the august
>issue with the Mac II vs. PS/2 model 80) as far as one of their
>magazines would fly.
>
>But, what do I know?
>
>Pete
>

More than you think.  Carefull consideration of the results of the two
infamous articles in question will reveal various inconsistencies.
I leave the details as an exercise for the reader (I sent a letter to
BYTE detailing the gaffs; perhaps they'll print it).

But what can you expect from people who think that systems should be
benchmarked using an interpreted language (or any HLL--assembly is the
only fair way to benchmark iron)?  At the very least, they should use
a compiled language and publish the dissasembled machine code for the
benchmark (on BIX, if not in the mag itself).

By the way, did anyone notice that Infoworld rated the Mac II as 3.72
times faster than an 8Mhz IBM AT (faster than the Deskpro 386, slower
only than the Intel Inboard (3.78) and PC's LTD 386 (4.00))?
Unfortunately, Infoworld provides almost no information as to how they
generated these numbers.  At least you can't PROVE that their methods
are whacko.

Alan "Check out those WEIRD Fibonacci results!" Lovejoy