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: Mon, 14 Dec 92 21:21:22 GMT

  > From:  tlilley@jarthur.claremont.edu (Thomas (Ted) Lilley)
  > Subject:  Re: Can we get the details of the benchmark setup? Please!

...
  > 
  > Brian, this takes the cake.  Quit whining like a little child who's had the
    >>> ir
  > feelings hurt, just because facts don't agree with your view  of the world.
  > You can run your own benchmarks (and, as you should note in the original po
    >>> st,
  > it was done with a standard PC labs windows benchmarker), but that does not
  > change the benchmarks that were run.  If you think that there is something
  > wrong with the premise, fine, point it out, but the figures are *VALID* for
  > that configuration.  That is NOT FUD.  That is not even bias!  Tell me how
  > WinBench is biased, and maybe you'll convince me.  Tim's explanation of the
  > circumstances surrounding the test were clear and particularly fair.  He
  > took pains to explain the exact situation for each test, and what precautio
    >>> ns
  > were taken to prevent skew of the measurements (like making sure there was
  > no paging under either system, unlike an MS comparison I can think of, and
  > noting the fact that the NT beta is not recommended for benchmarking purpos
    >>> es).

I did not say that running the benchmark was FUD, I asked for a copy of
the benchmark so I could try it on other hardware.
I also said that the 40% figure was incorrect, that my usage experience
says otherwise.  Win32 discontinued one form of Windows drawing mode, it
is my guess that the benchmarks Tim ran used this mode, which is currently
emulated very poorly, and that this wildly skewed the benchmark results.
This should be evident from looking at breakout figures from the benchmark.
There are perhaps other such minor problems.  The NT beta currently
feels like running under Windows 3.0.
As to "I can get it too"... how?  I don't even know the version he is
using.  Nor do I know where to get that version.

  > 
  > If there is anyone wearing rose-colored glasses, it's you.  Now why don't
  > you go perform your own benchmarks to counter Tim's.  Be sure you are as
  > fair and thorough as he was, though, if you please. 

That's all I asked.... but Tim hasn't responded yet.

  > 
  > I think you're over-reacting because
  > you're afraid people have no brains and can't make proper judgments for the
    >>> m-
  > selves.  Unfortunately, instead of showing the Big Picture to others, you
  > end up shielding yourself from that same view.

I'm not overreacting, Tim appears to be on a campaign to slur NT.

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
poor in a few minor cases but reasonable in most, I think posting just
the overall number is FUD.

The post he made about booting and NT and OS/2 was unjustified, and thus
I believe constitutes FUD. Though perhaps Tim did not know that
MS actively tells you how to get around the problem.  After all, anybody
with the NT SDK is supposed to contact MS through CompuServe, which is where
the information is.  I don't see IBM explaining how to dual boot NT and
OS/2, now do I?  Tim said to consider the behavior of the companies when
choosing between the two OS's. MS helps you use OS/2 2.0, IBM doesn't help
you use NT.  This however was not Tim's message, that message made it
appear that MS had some evil plot to not work with OS/2.

  > Ted

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