🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <315C45C0.167E@detroit.sgi.com>,
Joe Landman  <landman@detroit.sgi.com> wrote:

>Then the meaning question comes in.  How relevant is the process of adding 1 million
>random numbers together versus solving the problem for which you purchase the
>computer?  That is, if you are going to take the time to look at the "benchmarks",
>why not do a real set of benchmarks, measuring the time to complete operations of
>relevance,  the ease of use of the system (often completely overlooked by those
>doing the benchmarks, to the chagrin of those receiving the machines), the visual
>quality and accuracy, etc.

If you can supply code for some real benchmarks, then I will heartily 
endorse it.  The UseMarks use code that anyone can examine, compile, and 
run on their own machines.  They also cover any number of tests the 
participants come up with.  My benchmark was only because it is pretty 
lame to suggest a course of action and not do anything to get it 
started.  But I apparantly know so little about benchmarks, I didn't know 
I proposed a bad one.  So I'm counting on help from the participants, 
anyone who'se interested.  Even in the "Oh yeah?  Can your machine do 
this?" catagory.