🚀 go-pugleaf

Joe Ragosta (jragosta@dca.net) wrote:
: In article <4j93ij$1ir@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu>, veakblad@Glue.umd.edu
: (David T. Wang) wrote:

: > Joe Ragosta (jragosta@dca.net) wrote:
: > : Wrong-o. Look at the November, 1995 Byte Magazine. They compared P6 and
: > : 604 boxes running commercial apps under WinNT. The 604 won easily.
: > 
: > I did. They did not compare P6 and 604 boxes. You keep on telling me to
: > look at Byte, which I did, and there was nothing there. 604 is a nice chip,
: > "faster" than a P6? no. 

: You didn't look very hard, then. Here, I'll make it easy for you:

: http://www.byte.com/art/9511/sec9/art1.htm

: The headline reads:

: "Faster than P6 and Mips, slower than Alpha, the PowerPC 604 makes a
: mean NT workstation"

: Is the problem that you can't read or that you think everyone else is too
: stupid to check a reference?

no, only you. Apparently you only read the headlines and not the article
itself.  Tell me exactly which application ran faster on the PPC604
than a P6 box?  none.  Byte's conclusion that PPC604 was "faster" than a 
P6 box was based solely on Bytemarks.  Did you read the article?
It doesn't support you claim that "Applications ran faster on the PPC604
box than on a P6 box".  READ THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU RESPOND! 

: -- 
: Regards,       Joe Ragosta

: Copyright Joseph M. Ragosta, 1996. Non-exclusive, royalty free
: license to distribute this post granted to any service provider 
: except Microsoft. By posting this, Microsoft agrees to pay $1,000 per 
: posting.