From: jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs)
Subject: Re: OS/2 vs NT benchmarking (was: Re: Can we get the details of ...)
In-reply-to: brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu's message of Tue, 15 Dec 92 23:09:48 GMT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept
	<1992Dec15.062001.14820@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<1992Dec15.091108.25482@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
	<JACOBS.92Dec15071114@cells.cs.utah.edu>
	<1992Dec15.230948.11114@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: 15 Dec 92 20:11:41

In article <1992Dec15.230948.11114@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
> In article <JACOBS.92Dec15071114@cells.cs.utah.edu> jacobs@cs.utah.edu (Steven R Jacobs) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.091108.25482@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>In article <1992Dec15.062001.14820@midway.uchicago.edu> sip1@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>>In article <1992Dec15.051348.22687@fcom.cc.utah.edu> brian@jaguar.cs.utah.edu (Brian Sturgill) writes:
>>>   ...
>>>>The fact is that neither represents code that will be delivered at any
>>>>date that is cast in stone.  IBM has announced no date whatsoever on
>>>>that code, and Microsoft has said, "First half, 1993" -- or
>>>>thereabouts.
>>>   ...
>>>
>>> Sorry, Tim, but IBM has set a date.
>>>
>>> Here is an excerpt from "ibmplans.txt" on ftp-os2.nmsu.edu.  It
>>> is a part of an IBM document detailing IBMs near-future plans for OS/2
>>> (and a little MS bashing as well).
>>>
>>>>  1992 OS/2 PRODUCT PLANS
>>>> 
>>>>       There will be a lot happening in the OS/2 product line through
>>>>  the remainder of 1992.
>>>> 
>>>>  ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BASE PRODUCT
>>>>       In the fall:   32-bit graphics engine; Windows 3.1; device
>>>>  drivers to support XGA, SVGA, and 8514 displays in seamless mode.
>>
>>Funny, I don't see any announced *date* in there.
>>
>>> Now I believe the claim by OS/2 fans has been that if IBM gives a date
>>> that they mean that date, so I can only assume that the release
>>> of this beta should occur on or before Dec. 15.
>>
>>Come off it, Brian.   If someone else took a clip from a file talking
>>about MS plans (especially a source as "official" as a non-MS FTP site)
>>and tried to attribute an actual DATE from general terms such as "fall"
>>and "end of year", you'd be jumping all over them.  Try to be reasonable.
>
> Where have you been?  That's all the sorts of dates that the OS/2 fans
> have been holding MS too.  For example, until a bit over a month ago, MS
> had said they were targeting the end of the year with NT.  They never
> said December 31, 1992, but we all know what was meant.  The point here
> is that IBM "never" does this (at least according to OS/2 fans).

Fine, if you want to follow the lead of others and look as silly as they
do, then that is your priveledge.  Being unreasonable simply because others
are unreasonable does not make you a reasonable person.

I think you've gone way overboard on attacking Tim for his benchmark.  His
post came across (at least to me) as merely presenting the data that was
available to him, with a straightforward description of what was done
(including reasonable disclaimers to provide his own grains of salt).

Your response was mostly an attack on the messenger rather than an attack
on the message.  As others have said, if you don't like the benchmark, run
your own and present your results.  Fight fire with fire.  Hammering on Tim
does not particularly refute his benchmark, it just makes you look a bit
like a raving madman :-)

As to where I've been, I don't generally follow the rantings in this group,
simply because I don't have the time for 3 million rounds of "did not --
did too" etc.  I saw Tim's post in c.o.o.m and found it intersting, so I
checked out the followups here.  I for one am glad that he posted it to
some of the technical groups, otherwise I'd have never seen it.

We now return you to the usual flame fest:  Next, Brian goes SuperNova...
--
Steve Jacobs  ({bellcore,hplabs,uunet}!utah-cs!jacobs, jacobs@cs.utah.edu)
"Don't worry, I just have these harmless pocket rockets...."