From: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill)
Subject: Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 03:47:03 GMT

In article <Bz9w85.MrI@utdallas.edu> goyal@utdallas.edu (MOHIT K GOYAL) writes:
>>The very fact he is benchmarking a _first_ beta drop against a "beta" that
>>is due out in a couple of weeks in my view qualifies as FUD, especially
>>since he did not point out that fact.  Running the benchmark itself
>>is not FUD, but to not point out the relative statuses of the OSes being
>>tested is.  Also, if what I believe holds true, that NT is very
>
>Oh please!  Maybe now we know the reason for all your insane posts...
>
>you are BLIND!!!
>
>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.

>
>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 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.
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.

>
>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.

>
>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.

>
>Please don't play with our feelings by telling us you are going to leave this
>group and then suddenly coming back.  It isn't very professional.  :)

If you remember, my posting said that I was not following comp.os.os2.advocacy,
but would keep an eye on comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy.
Now if you look real close at the Newgroups line, you may just understand
why we are both seeing this posting.
Though keep up the taunting!  I _could_ come back you know. :-)

Brian
-- 
C. Brian Sturgill                          NeXTStep 486 is for _YOU_!!!!
University of Utah                    Microsoft needs competition, but I want
Center for Software Science          to be one of the many running Windows NT!
brian@cs.utah.edu; CIS: 70363,1373    :-) :-) :-)  NT SDK: $69; (800) 227-4679
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy