From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 05:43:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.034703.21181@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>Tim clearly stated that he was using a NT beta that Microsoft has said should
>>*NOT* be used for benchmarks.
>>He also clearly stated that he was also using one of the more recent OS/2 2.1
>>betas...the copy from the November PDK. (which is not the most recent beta)
>Fine for you, someone that follows closely what version is where, but
>for someone that does not even know what a PDK is, this is far from adequate.

The various products (or betas) being compared were described in
brutal detail.  Please reread the original post.

>>I'm sure this will sound familiar but...it would be nice if you would actually
>>take the time to *READ* a message before replying to it.
>I did read it, and while Tim did explain what the two OS version he was
>comparing were, he did so in a manner that is cryptic to those that
>don't live and breath this stuff.  I assure you there are plenty of
>people in comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy that have no idea what the November
>OS/2 PDK is.  The same holds true for people in
>comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32.

I did not use the term "PDK" -- I spelled it out, gave the date, and
explained that it was the third public Win-OS/2 3.1 beta, among other
things.  Again, please reread the original post.  I honestly don't
know how I could have made it clearer.

>I know this will shock you, but there are people that like Windows and
>have no interest in OS/2 whatsoever.  I'm not about to let someone
>post something so radically wrong and not respond to it.

You are encouraged to run your own benchmarks.

>Windows fans reading Tim's post, that don't have the SDK, might
>get the impression that it is _very_ slow.  This is simply not the case.

The Winmark benchmark disagrees with you.  Run your own numbers, and
describe your methodology.

>>TFS merely performed a benchmark using a copy of WinBench...probably the 
>>widely available v2.5, or the just released v3.1.
>And for example he failed to say what version.
>Further I have no idea how to get this benchmark.
>Enlightenment on both accounts would be appreciated.

I explained in gory detail what the benchmark did, what version I
used, and who published it (PC Magazine).  PC Magazine is well known
in the industry, and anyone should be able to obtain the benchmark
with little effort, even without my followup.

>>He doesn't know that NT is "not well suited" for this benchmark.
>>You might have gained some credibility if you had politely pointed out that
>>a reason for NT performing so poorly might have been ... but NOOOOOOOO...you
>>have to do you're usual "you don't like NT, you are a demon spreading FUD!"
>>speech...
>It is quite clear, both from the groups Tim selected, and the tone of
>his post that he was posting this as a slam on NT.

I ran benchmarks, explained my methodology, and reported the results
as dispassionately as I know how.  If you don't like the numbers, or
you don't like the methodology, please run your own and report your
methodology as thoroughly as I did mine.

I should have some more numbers available in the near future, as well.

In particular, I hope to flesh out the Model 57 tests, provide
breakdowns for all tests, and run mixed Excel macro and disk I/O
benchmarks.  These two will be a bit difficult, since NT can operate
with three file systems (FAT, HPFS, and NTFS) and OS/2 2.0 can
operate with two (FAT and HPFS).

-- 
Timothy F. Sipples      | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
Dept. of Econ., Univ.   | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
of Chicago, 60637       | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]