dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) (05/29/86)
I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about
the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives
you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost".
Arrgh. Come on guys. If I wanted to hear propaganda I'd plug Intel
into one ear and Motorola in the other. Is this the MIP rating for the
68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask
for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen
many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that
many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one.
--
David Hinnant
SCI Systems, Inc.
...{decvax, akgua}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!dfhdave@comm.UUCP (Dave Brownell) (05/29/86)
In article <577@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: > ... They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives > you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". > Arrgh. ... Is this the MIP rating for the > 68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask > for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen > many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that > many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. This is Apples and Oranges ... a MIP, however meaningless, is a CPU benchmark, and a "user" is a rather ill-defined I/O benchmark ... and I do believe the I/O on the 7300 is not up to the CPU. Maybe when someone comes up with a realistic I/O benchmark we can really start comparing UNIX hardware. (Yes, that marketing claim is absurd.) -- Dave Brownell EnMasse Computer Corporation {genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave
mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) (05/30/86)
In article <266@comm.UUCP> dave@comm.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes: >In article <577@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >> ... They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >> you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >> Arrgh. ... Is this the MIP rating for the >> 68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask >> for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen >> many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that >> many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. > >This is Apples and Oranges ... a MIP, however meaningless, is a CPU benchmark, >and a "user" is a rather ill-defined I/O benchmark ... and I do believe >the I/O on the 7300 is not up to the CPU. On the other hand, if you stuff 8 Meg into a UNIX PC, put an RP07 or an RA81 or similar sort of large, fast disk on it, you get the quoted horsepower at a considerable, but less than 100% cost of the 780. If you don't consider "optional" equipment when comparing 2 boxes, you aren't REALLY comparing them. If you don't consider "equivalent configuration" you're in the wrong ballpark. Not that I'm defending the claim in the glossy literature -- I'm not (and can't) -- but, with similar configurations, the claim is accurate in its description of the power of the UNIX PC. Dave Brownell's comment also applies. -- Marty Shannon UUCP: ihnp4!attunix!mjs Phone: +1 (201) 522 6063 Disclaimer: I speak for no one. "If I never loved, I never would have cried." -- Simon & Garfunkel
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (05/31/86)
In article <577@scirtp.UUCP>, dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: > > ... I've seen > many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that > many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. Be fair, now. What setup of UNIX PC were you looking at? My UNIX PC has 2 MB RAM and a 67 MB disk. Granted, it won't support * 20 * users, but it certainly handles more than ONE user. I've had 3 users on at one time and everything ran just beautifully. -- Kathy Vincent ========================================================== kitty Home at ihnp4! < > !bakerst!kathy wruxi mcnc!ethos!bakerst!kathy AT&T at ihnp4!wruxi!unix
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (06/01/86)
> I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about > the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives > you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". What's even funnier about that ad is that it shows a bunch of superminis in the background, which the UNIX PC can presumably replace. Several of the cabinets in the background clearly read "3B20".... > Is this the MIP rating for the 68010 as compared to the VAX? That's a number I've heard for the 010. (I also know of a certain company which claims their 12.5MhZ 68010 machine is 1.2 x an 11/780. I think they claim this based on some real benchmarks, but I find it hard to believe. I suspect they got this figure by figuring: The 11/780 is a 5MhZ 32-bit machine. A 12.5 Mhz 16-bit (sort of) machine like the 68010 must therefore be (12.5/5)*(16/32) == 1.25 11/780s. > I've seen many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you > put that many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. Not fair. The UNIX PC is not a 68010, it's a 68010 surrounded with other chips and peripherals. The MIPS rating of a chip is even more meaningless when you put it into a system. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.arpa
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (06/01/86)
From: dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) > I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about >the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >Arrgh. Come on guys. There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago saying that Convergent Tech (maker of the UNIX/PC) is basically in deep s**t over this product as AT&T has cut orders to almost nil. I think they said a total of 10,000 were sold, around 7,000 of those internally to AT&T. There was some mumble therein about it not being compatible with International Business Machine's computers and it may have been "ahead of its time". I dunno, I have one here to play with, I think it's a neat machine. Obviously AT&T blew the marketing (just listen to you!) I think back when we time-shared a PDP-11/10 with 28KW of memory and 5MB (RK05) of disk (what? 1978!) and am truly astounded by this box tho it may be a bit pricey for its market (arguable, I'd take it over a PC/AT any day.) For example, besides the 68010 it is, I believe, the only machine in the PC class (price, design) with paging and virtual memory. Too bad, I think it *is* ahead of its time and I also think its probable death as a product can be laid to blame on letting the guys in the twelve-piece suits do the product strategy. Sigh. And I am sure they'll point to it and use it as an example of *ANYTHING* but their own stupidity. If *I* were king (:-) I woulda provided an ethernet interface, TCP/IP and sold it like hotcakes to every University short on UNIX cycles. I have always been leary of the required computer purchase policy of some universities but this box I might have gotten behind just because UNIX provides a) so many of the things a student needs (languages, word processing, games!*, in a uniform, single system manner) b) when it gets obsolete they can move onto another UNIX box with all their files c) a little file-transfer and they can work with the 'big' UNIX systems at school and d) for programming students UNIX provides a realistic development environment with real tools and software conventions etc much more representative of larger systems, I find too much of the micro environment to encourage ad hoc programming (the poke/peek mentality.) It should have been a real competitor to the Mac. A better screen would have helped also. I think Convergent got scrod. For a single user it really is roughly 750 equivalent or a little better, I think you exaggerate a little in the other direction (obviously the issue here is I/O bandwidth.) I also think ATT had a problem with the UNIX/PC's close proximity to the 3B2 and Olivetti/6300 (especially when Xenix came out.) It fit in the middle, but the middle was just too small for the business world they pointed it at. Rule zero of marketing a computer is NEVER confuse the customer with indistinguishable (to them) choices, they'll go somewhere else entirely if possible, they perceive it as lack of focus on the part of the company (and in this case they would have been right, although it's self-fulfilling.) Oh well, too bad, maybe it's not too late if it truly is "ahead of its time". -Barry Shein, Boston University * I realize they unbundled a lot of this software but I think most dealers were making deals to put it back at minimal cost to make the sales and I'm sure any volume promise such as a required PC purchase could easily have worked those packages back in.
jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) (06/02/86)
In article <577@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: > > I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about ^^^^^^^ (sic) >the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >Arrgh. Come on guys. If I wanted to hear propaganda I'd plug Intel >into one ear and Motorola in the other. Is this the MIP rating for the >68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask >for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen >many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that >many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. Aw c'mon guys give us a break. If you are lucky enough to be working for a company whose Sales and Marketing departments, let alone the boys who write the advertising copy, actually talk to the development organizations then you are extremely fortunate and should stay there. On the positive side of advertising, I trust you have all noticed the recent crop of adverts showing a unix pc and a Merlin phone in the press. I spotted them in 'The Economist' and 'TV Guide' (shows my eclectic tastes), I am assured that 'Business Week' and others have been carrying them. -- Jonathan Clark [NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc My walk has become rather more silly lately.
hrs@homxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (06/02/86)
Read the UnixPC (TM) review in May BYTE for benchmark comparisons with Vax.
hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) (06/03/86)
> I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about >the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >Arrgh. Come on guys. If I wanted to hear propaganda I'd plug Intel >into one ear and Motorola in the other. Is this the MIP rating for the >68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask >for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen >many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that >many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. The comparison was made with 512K of memory and a 10MB disk in each machine :-)
jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (06/03/86)
> In article <577@scirtp.UUCP>, dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: > > > > ... I've seen > > many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that > > many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. > > Be fair, now. What setup of UNIX PC were you looking at? > My UNIX PC has 2 MB RAM and a 67 MB disk. > Granted, it won't support * 20 * users, but it certainly handles > more than ONE user. I've had 3 users on at one time and everything > ran just beautifully. > > > -- > > Kathy Vincent > ========================================================== > > kitty > Home at ihnp4! < > !bakerst!kathy > wruxi > > mcnc!ethos!bakerst!kathy > > AT&T at ihnp4!wruxi!unix I don't plan to present arguments that address previous postings in detail, because it seems the point has shifted. The ridiculous claim in the ad is that the UNIX PC has 75% of the power of a DEC VAX 11/780. If this is true, I should be able to replace 3 VAX 11/780 with 4 UNIX PCs (and support the 100 - 120 users on the Vaxen). To claim such a replacement ratio, as the ad does, is clearly dishonest. A more realistic, but still rather absurd, replacement would be to replace a VAX 11/780 with 13 UNIX PCs, assuming that each UNIX PC will support 3 users as Ms. Vincent states. This would cost 115% of an VAX 11/780 if the "7% of a VAX" cost statement is correct. AT&T should be fair and honest in its claims. They haven't been. The AT&T ad is a good example of taking an irrelevant measure of raw processor speed and building a lie from it. -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
johnl@ima.UUCP (John R. Levine) (06/03/86)
It's certainly a lie to claim that you can put 75% of the load of a 780 on
a 68010 box. It's probably not a lie to claim that you get 75% of the single
user performance. A few years back, people I work with were benchmarking a
port of System III between a 286 box and a Vax 750. The 286 box was one of
Intel's development systems that roughly resembled a PC AT except the I/O was
multibus rather than PC bus. For the sorts of things that Unix users do, such
as compiling C programs and running documents through troff, the 286 was at
least as fast as the 750, and often close to a 780 in performance. I think that
the comparison was quite fair, as both machines were running similar versions of
Sys III, so that most of the kernel code and almost all of the user code was
compiled from the same C sources. Both compilers were Sys III PCC based.
The biggest difference these days between a micro and a big computer isn't CPU
power -- it's I/O bandwidth. With one user on a computer, the CPU performance
is relatively more important than the I/O bandwidth. As you load up more
users, I/O becomes more important, as you start paging and swapping, and the
larger computer's more sophisticated I/O becomes more useful. If there's only
one process, it hardly matters if you can overlap I/O and computing. If there
are a lot of processes, it's quite important. The Vax's separate I/O and memory
buses pay off then.
Anyway, if you interpret their claim as meaning that having a Unix PC is 75%
as good as having your own Vax, it's still hype but it's a lot closer to
reality.
--
John R. Levine, Javelin Software Corp., Cambridge MA +1 617 494 1400
{ ihnp4 | decvax | cbosgd | harvard | yale }!ima!johnl, Levine@YALE.EDU
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of a 12-year-old hacker
who has broken into my account and not those of any person or organization.pdg@ihdev.UUCP (P. D. Guthrie) (06/04/86)
In article <583@scirtp.UUCP> jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: >I don't plan to present arguments that address previous postings in detail, >because it seems the point has shifted. The ridiculous claim in the ad is >that the UNIX PC has 75% of the power of a DEC VAX 11/780. > Hmm. I would say that 1111 Dhrystones (REG) vs 1562 Dhrystones (REG) (both running SysV) is pretty close (71%). Why is this claim so ridiculous? What better method of *processor* comparison can you come up with? >If this is true, I should be able to replace 3 VAX 11/780 with 4 UNIX PCs >(and support the 100 - 120 users on the Vaxen). > Not at all. The way I read the `ridiculous claim', the benchmark measurement fully justifies it. It could be construed as misleading to those who completely justify computer purchases wholely on processor speed, and (like the above statement to do with loading users onto both) fail to take into account speed of peripherals, memory management techniques and other important considerations. >To claim such a replacement ratio, as the ad does, is clearly dishonest. > No, as explained above. >A more realistic, but still rather absurd, replacement would be to replace >a VAX 11/780 with 13 UNIX PCs, assuming that each UNIX PC will support 3 >users as Ms. Vincent states. This would cost 115% of an VAX 11/780 if >the "7% of a VAX" cost statement is correct. > Well, this is quite correct, but ATT was surely not trying to tell those prospective DEC-VAX buyers that they could buy a UNIX PC instead and just suffer a small speed reduction and no other trade-offs. A smart buyer in the market for a vax-sized machine is not even going to consider the UNIX-PC, but a smart buyer in the PC market hopefully will because ATT has *correctly* billed the power of the UNIX PC, and the PC buyer knows the limitations of the class of computer system he is in the market for. >AT&T should be fair and honest in its claims. They haven't been. >The AT&T ad is a good example of taking an irrelevant measure of raw >processor speed and building a lie from it. > Those are very harsh words for a machine that *can* back up the ad, in the sense of benchmarks. As I mentioned above, although the processor speed is important, there are many other considerations to be tken into account. They are not building a `lie' from this. Rather if a buyer does not take other factors into account, he deserves what he gets. They are merely playing up one of the better and more important aspects of their machine. Is Mercedes building a lie when they say that their cars are the best crashed tested in the world? They can back up that claim (I hope), but this is not the only thing to take into account when buying a car. This is advertizing. Welcome to the real world. Besides, I don't think that DEC is going to lose a lot of VAX sales from this. :-) >-- > > The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily > represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. > >Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi >SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334 I guess I need a disclaimer here - Although ATT will show up in my organization line I don't work for them. -- Paul Guthrie `See the happy moron, he doesn't give a damn. ihnp4!ihdev!pdg I wish I were a moron. My God! Perhaps I am.'
josh@polaris.UUCP (Josh Knight) (06/05/86)
In article <1633@mtuxo.UUCP> hsc@mtuxo.UUCP (h.cohen) writes: >> I just read some trade rag that had an ad in it from Ma Bell about >>the UNIX PC. They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >>you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >>... >The comparison was made with 512K of memory and a 10MB disk in each >machine :-) When the Vax 11/780 (1980?) I first used was installed it had 512K of memory and 80Mb of disk. The recompilation of 4.0(?) BSD Unix that the installation documentation said would take 20 minutes took 8 hours. Never did figure exactly why. Didn't seem to be thrashing. Definitely would NOT support 20 people (one person ^f'ing on vi brought the machine to its knees). My memory is the configuration cost about $150K. It was a pretty nice PC, but I could tell when anyone else logged on. -- Josh Knight, IBM T.J. Watson Research josh@ibm.com, josh@yktvmh.bitnet, ...!philabs!polaris!josh
rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (06/06/86)
In article <266@comm.UUCP> dave@comm.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes: >In article <577@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >> ... They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >> you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >> Arrgh. ... Is this the MIP rating for the >> 68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask >> for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen >> many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that >> many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. > >This is Apples and Oranges ... a MIP, however meaningless, is a CPU benchmark, >and a "user" is a rather ill-defined I/O benchmark ... and I do believe >the I/O on the 7300 is not up to the CPU. Maybe when someone comes up >with a realistic I/O benchmark we can really start comparing UNIX hardware. >(Yes, that marketing claim is absurd.) You can say that again, I've been enhancing an 8085 box that supports 16 users :-). What types of support, I/O, and terminals is each supporting? Is the UNIX PC running bit-mapped video? Is the VAX driving relatively smart terminals (VT-100,VT-52,Tektronix,...)? Are the VAX terminals connected at 9600 baud? What types of "Demand Paging" are on the PC?. How do the disk drives compare? There are specific applications where "user response time" is an important factor, and MIPs take a "back seat". We sell a system that supports 1000 searches/second on 1 million listings, but you wouldn't believe the hardware/software that does this. We also sell a 68012 configuration rated nominally at 2x780, and some brief exposures to it leave me a believer, but in the "32 user mode", there is a lot of smarts required by the "Terminals". A VAX with 20 VT-100's on it, is really running about 6 MIPS, if you include the CPU power of each of the VT-100's. A 5/32 with 32 "PowerTerminals" is running about 18 MIPS. You just don't look at the MIPS of the terminals, because you don't "Program" them. In fact, they run at least an ANSI 3.64 interpreter! The "PT's" actually run much of the editing functions right on the terminal. Conversely, a VAX running bit-mapped graphics and video to each user would likely "come to it's knees" with fewer than 4 users, if EVERYTHING had to be "painted" on the screen. MIPs are great. You can distribute them any way you want?
levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) (06/07/86)
In article <266@comm.UUCP>, dave@comm.UUCP (Dave Brownell) writes: >In article <577@scirtp.UUCP> dfh@scirtp.UUCP (David F. Hinnant) writes: >> ... They made this interesting claim that the UNIX PC gives >> you "75% of the power of a VAX 11/780" for "only 7% of the cost". >> Arrgh. ... Is this the MIP rating for the >> 68010 as compared to the VAX? Looks like it. One really couldn't ask >> for a better example of the Meaningless Index of Performance. I've seen >> many a 780 run with more than 20 users. I'd like to see you put that >> many on a UNIX PC that I found can barely support one. >This is Apples and Oranges ... a MIP, however meaningless, is a CPU benchmark, >and a "user" is a rather ill-defined I/O benchmark ... and I do believe >the I/O on the 7300 is not up to the CPU. Maybe when someone comes up >with a realistic I/O benchmark we can really start comparing UNIX hardware. >(Yes, that marketing claim is absurd.) > Dave Brownell > EnMasse Computer Corporation > {genrad,harvard}!enmasse!comm!dave It only appears absurd to those who take it to mean what it doesn't mean. The CPU does have that much 'crunch power'. I/O is a separate animal. -- ------------------------------- Disclaimer: The views contained herein are | dan levy | yvel nad | my own and are not at all those of my em- | an engihacker @ | ployer or the administrator of any computer | at&t computer systems division | upon which I may hack. | skokie, illinois | -------------------------------- Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa, vax135}!ttrdc!levy
jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) (06/09/86)
In article <286@sfsup.UUCP> mjs@sfsup.UUCP (M.J.Shannon) writes: >On the other hand, if you stuff 8 Meg into a UNIX PC, put an RP07 or an RA81 >or similar sort of large, fast disk on it, you get the quoted horsepower at >a considerable, but less than 100% cost of the 780. You can't put more than 4 MB onto a UNIX PC, and you can't put any big, fast disks onto it either. Even if you could (and I could really use a unix pc with 4 MB and a couple of Eagles) you still wouldn't get the power because of bus bandwidth limitations. As a CPU benchmark only the MIP claims and Dhrystone ratings may have some validity; and a measure of system performance they have none. Remember, these days there are five types of falsehoods: Lies Damned Lies Statistics Benchmarks Salesman's claims PS Anyone know the origin of this recent version of the famous chestnut? Even the original original? -- Jonathan Clark [NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc My walk has become rather more silly lately.
jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) (06/10/86)
> In article <583@scirtp.UUCP> jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: > >I don't plan to present arguments that address previous postings in detail, > >because it seems the point has shifted. The ridiculous claim in the ad is > >that the UNIX PC has 75% of the power of a DEC VAX 11/780. > > > > Hmm. I would say that 1111 Dhrystones (REG) vs 1562 Dhrystones (REG) > (both running SysV) is pretty close (71%). Why is this claim so > ridiculous? What better method of *processor* comparison can you come > up with? > The ad isn't talking about "*processor*" power, it's talking about "computing power." I still find the claim ridiculous. If AT&T was talking explicitly about "*processor*" speed then talking Dhrystones would make sense. Besides, where does the ad mention or refer to Dhrystones, or any other benchmark? Since processor speed is not the issue, system performance should be measured at the system level, including I/O bandwidth, storage capacities, etc. This would provide a much more valid comparison of the two systems. > >If this is true, I should be able to replace 3 VAX 11/780 with 4 UNIX PCs > >(and support the 100 - 120 users on the Vaxen). > > > > Not at all. The way I read the `ridiculous claim', the benchmark > measurement fully justifies it. It could be construed as misleading to > those who completely justify computer purchases wholely on processor > speed, and (like the above statement to do with loading users onto both) > fail to take into account speed of peripherals, memory management > techniques and other important considerations. > AT&T, in their ad copy which wrongly focuses on processor speed, states that the UNIX PC "puts room-size computing power right on a desktop." Their ad is particularly misleading to those who want to avoid buying hardware based solely on CPU speed, since they do not let the reader know that they're comparing systems with CPU-only, unnamed, unreferenced benchmarks. (What "benchmark measurement" are you talking about now?) > >To claim such a replacement ratio, as the ad does, is clearly dishonest. > > > > No, as explained above. > Since AT&T claims to provide "room-size computing power on a desktop," such a replacement ratio is implied. > >A more realistic, but still rather absurd, replacement would be to replace > >a VAX 11/780 with 13 UNIX PCs, assuming that each UNIX PC will support 3 > >users as Ms. Vincent states. This would cost 115% of an VAX 11/780 if > >the "7% of a VAX" cost statement is correct. > > > > Well, this is quite correct, but ATT was surely not trying to tell those > prospective DEC-VAX buyers that they could buy a UNIX PC instead and just > suffer a small speed reduction and no other trade-offs. A smart buyer > in the market for a vax-sized machine is not even going to consider the > UNIX-PC, but a smart buyer in the PC market hopefully will because ATT > has *correctly* billed the power of the UNIX PC, and the PC buyer knows > the limitations of the class of computer system he is in the market for. > I think AT&T wasn't thinking about "smart" computer buyers - the ad's hooks all focus on naive and uninitiated buyers - especially those who may be fooled by the claims in the ad. > >AT&T should be fair and honest in its claims. They haven't been. > >The AT&T ad is a good example of taking an irrelevant measure of raw > >processor speed and building a lie from it. > > > > Those are very harsh words for a machine that *can* back up the ad, in > the sense of benchmarks. As I mentioned above, although the processor > speed is important, there are many other considerations to be tken into > account. They are not building a `lie' from this. Rather if a buyer > does not take other factors into account, he deserves what he gets. > They are merely playing up one of the better and more important aspects > of their machine. Is Mercedes building a lie when they say that their > cars are the best crashed tested in the world? They can back up that > claim (I hope), but this is not the only thing to take into account when > buying a car. This is advertizing. Welcome to the real world. > Besides, I don't think that DEC is going to lose a lot of VAX > sales from this. :-) > Perhaps I was a bit harsh... but I still feel AT&T was dishonest. If a dishonest statement is not a lie, what is it? All the stuff about Mercedes attempts to shift the point, as does the comment re the "real world." Making a statement that someting "provides 75% of the power" for "7% of the cost" implies that the less powerful, less expensive item is somehow a reasonable replacement for the more expensive item. Whether a UNIX PC is a better machine for many users now on Vaxen isn't the point of the ad. The point of the ad is a misleading comparison of two different systems that have few common applications (at the system- level), with the comparison skewed falsely in favor of the advertised product. What is especially galling is the lack of substantiation for the advertised claim. Dhrystones? How could we know that AT&T's claim was based on Dhry- stones? (Not that it would really make a difference....) > > I guess I need a disclaimer here - Although ATT will show up in my > organization line I don't work for them. > This is a good example of ambiguity. > > -- > > Paul Guthrie `See the happy moron, he doesn't give a damn. > ihnp4!ihdev!pdg I wish I were a moron. My God! Perhaps I am.' -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334
kds@mipos3.UUCP (06/12/86)
Of course, with DEC emphasizing Unibus disks (e.g., RA81s) plugged into HSC50s and HSC70s, perhaps the I/O bandwidth issue is moot...I can't believe that the transfer rates over the Unibus is any faster than any of the more modern microprocessor busses. I mean, last time I looked it was an open-collector, asynchronous bus (it did, after all, predate tri-state logic!)
moly@vax1.UUCP (06/12/86)
In article <612@mtune.UUCP> jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) writes: >Remember, these days there are five types of falsehoods: > Lies > Damned Lies > Statistics > Benchmarks > Salesman's claims > >PS Anyone know the origin of this recent version of the famous >chestnut? Even the original original? > >-- >Jonathan Clark >[NAC,attmail]!mtune!jhc The original original was from Benjamin Disraeli, revered statesman. --Bruce F. Wong
ken@njitcccc.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) (06/13/86)
In article <585@scirtp.UUCP>, jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: > > > Perhaps I was a bit harsh... but I still feel AT&T was dishonest. If a > dishonest statement is not a lie, what is it? All the stuff about Mercedes > attempts to shift the point, as does the comment re the "real world." > Making a statement that someting "provides 75% of the power" for "7% of > the cost" implies that the less powerful, less expensive item is somehow > a reasonable replacement for the more expensive item. You know, a lot of this discussion revolves around the assumption that if you want the power of a vax 11/780, one would buy a vax 11/780. A friend of mine who works for DEC says that if you were solely interested in raw cpu power you would not buy a 780, you would buy the microvax II, which costs far less than the 780, but has 90% of its power, in cpu intensive applications. He also mentioned a couple of other important things. First, the 780 is an all purpose performance machine (for its day). It was designed to handle multitasking multiprocess environments well. It has a one instruction "switch task", which I believe the 68000 lacks. The 780 has virtual memory, does the Unix PC? The benchmarks do not test the i/o capabilities of the machine, which in a multitask environment is often the bottleneck. Furthermore, the Unix PC runs Unix (obviously), where the main bottleneck of the machine is its i/o. All in all I do feel that the ad is somewhat misleading. But hopefully, prospective buyers will ignore the ad and get some real facts on what the machine is capable of doing. P.S. Does anyone know what the price ratio between the Vax 11/780 and the Microvax II is? -- Kenneth Ng: uucp(unreliable) ihnp4!allegra!bellcore!njitcccc!ken soon uucp:ken@rigel.cccc.njit.edu bitnet(prefered) ken@njitcccc.bitnet soon bitnet: ken@orion.cccc.njit.edu (Yes, we are slowly moving to RCF 920, kicking and screaming) New Jersey Institute of Technology Computerized Conferencing and Communications Center Newark, New Jersey 07102 Vulcan jealousy: "I fail to see the logic in prefering Stonn over me" Movie "Short Circuit": Number 5: "I need input"
jrw@hropus.UUCP (Jim Webb) (06/13/86)
vvvvvv > Of course, with DEC emphasizing Unibus disks (e.g., RA81s) plugged into > HSC50s and HSC70s, perhaps the I/O bandwidth issue is moot... ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^ The HSC[57]0's are _NOT_ Unibus devices! These guys are _FAST_ and so are the disks hooked up to them. On the other hand, the UDA50 _IS_ a Unibus controller, and it shows, as it takes ~11 minutes to back up an ra60 on an HSC50 and ~24 minutes on a UDA50. -- Jim Webb ihnp4!houxm!hropus!jrw
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (06/14/86)
> It was designed to handle multitasking multiprocess environments well. > It has a one instruction "switch task", which I believe the 68000 lacks. The 68000 does, indeed, not have a single "switch task" instruction, but who cares? The fact that operation X is performed by a single instruction in no way implies that operation X is exceptionally fast. Furthermore, I have no idea how much of the task-switch time on VMS or UNIX is spent doing what the "load process context" instruction does; it has to figure out which task to run, for instance, which adds a few more instructions. > The 780 has virtual memory, does the Unix PC? Yes. -- Guy Harris {ihnp4, decvax, seismo, decwrl, ...}!sun!guy guy@sun.com (or guy@sun.arpa)
kathy@bakerst.UUCP (Kathy Vincent) (06/16/86)
In article <16@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu>, moly@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu (Bruce F. Wong) writes: > In article <612@mtune.UUCP> jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) writes: > > >Remember, these days there are five types of falsehoods: > > Lies > > Damned Lies > > Statistics > > Benchmarks > > Salesman's claims > > > >PS Anyone know the origin of this recent version of the famous > >chestnut? Even the original original? > > The original original was from Benjamin Disraeli, revered statesman. > My Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (3rd ed) lists the quote, yes, under Disraeli, with the following source line beneath it: Attr. Mark Twain, Autobiography, I.246 Might that be the original (vs. original original) you're talking about? -- Kathy Vincent ========================================================== Home at _______________ / \ / kitty \ ihnp4! < > !bakerst!kathy wruxi / / mcnc!ethos! -------- AT&T at ihnp4!wruxi!unix
mjl@ritcv.UUCP (Mike Lutz) (06/16/86)
In article <16@vax1.ccs.cornell.edu> moly@vax1.UUCP (Bruce F. Wong) writes: >In article <612@mtune.UUCP> jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) writes: > >>Remember, these days there are five types of falsehoods: >> Lies >> Damned Lies >> Statistics >The original original was from Benjamin Disraeli, revered statesman. In a similar vein, and in keeping with the spirit of this discussion, I think it was Mark Twain who said: Most people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost: more for support than illumination. -- Mike Lutz Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester NY UUCP: {allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!mjl CSNET: mjl%rit@csnet-relay.ARPA
bc@cyb-eng.UUCP (Bill Crews) (06/17/86)
> In article <612@mtune.UUCP> jhc@mtune.UUCP (Jonathan Clark) writes: > > >Remember, these days there are five types of falsehoods: > > Lies > > Damned Lies > > Statistics > > Benchmarks > > Salesman's claims > > > >PS Anyone know the origin of this recent version of the famous > >chestnut? Even the original original? > >-- > >Jonathan Clark > > The original original was from Benjamin Disraeli, revered statesman. > > --Bruce F. Wong Really? It wasn't Sam Clemens? I thought it was Sam Clemens. Wasn't it? -- - bc - ..!{seismo,topaz,gatech,nbires,ihnp4}!ut-sally!cyb-eng!bc (512) 835-2266
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (06/18/86)
> You know, a lot of this discussion revolves around the assumption > that if you want the power of a vax 11/780, one would buy a vax > 11/780. A friend of mine who works for DEC says that if you were > solely interested in raw cpu power you would not buy a 780, you > would buy the microvax II, which costs far less than the 780, > but has 90% of its power, in cpu intensive applications... Nobody in his right mind would buy a 780 nowadays. And the Microvax II isn't that impressive either; 68020 boxes from Sun or Integrated Solutions are priced similarly and have 3-4 times the cpu crunch. > ... the 780 is > an all purpose performance machine (for its day). It was designed > to handle multitasking multiprocess environments well. It has > a one instruction "switch task", which I believe the 68000 lacks... The 780 is also notorious for the interesting property that many of its complex instructions are actually *slower* than the equivalent combination of simple 780 instructions. I'm not sure about "switch task", but it would not surprise me if the 68000 does it faster. Let's not even mention the comparison to a well-designed RISC; Mips's machine does a TLB refill faster in software than the 780 does it in hardware. -- Usenet(n): AT&T scheme to earn revenue from otherwise-unused Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology late-night phone capacity. {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
dibble@rochester.ARPA (Peter C. Dibble) (06/19/86)
In article <6826@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > Nobody in his right mind would buy a 780 nowadays. And the Microvax II > isn't that impressive either; 68020 boxes from Sun or Integrated Solutions > are priced similarly and have 3-4 times the cpu crunch. The Dhrystone numbers I have seen show that a Sun III is roughly comparable to a Microvax II. I might believe 1.5 times as fast. Three to four times the speed is a statement that needs support. Peter Dibble
davet@oakhill.UUCP (Dave Trissel) (06/20/86)
In article <6826@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> ... the 780 is >> an all purpose performance machine (for its day). It was designed >> to handle multitasking multiprocess environments well. It has >> a one instruction "switch task", which I believe the 68000 lacks... > >The 780 is also notorious for the interesting property that many of its >complex instructions are actually *slower* than the equivalent combination >of simple 780 instructions. I'm not sure about "switch task", but it would >not surprise me if the 68000 does it faster. ... I don't know about the VAX 780 instruction times, but an identical situation currently exists in regard to the Intel 386 and the Motorola MC68020. Intel in advertizing and seminars brags about their task switch instruction capability and gives a time of 17 microseconds with the implication that this obviously beats chips which don't have such a capability. What is quite fascinating is that I coded up the exact equivalent code for the MC68020 and MC68851 combination and it came out to between 12 and 13 microseconds. (Both chips at 16 Megahertz and no wait-state memory.) The MC68020/851 code was about 12 instructions yet definitely faster. -- Dave Trissel Motorola Semiconductor, Austin, Texas {seismo,ihnp4}!ut-sally!im4u!oakhill!davet
davidsen@steinmetz.UUCP (Davidsen) (06/26/86)
In article <19005@rochester.ARPA> dibble@rochester.UUCP writes: >In article <6826@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >> Nobody in his right mind would buy a 780 nowadays. And the Microvax II >> isn't that impressive either; 68020 boxes from Sun or Integrated Solutions >> are priced similarly and have 3-4 times the cpu crunch. > >The Dhrystone numbers I have seen show that a Sun III is roughly >comparable to a Microvax II. I might believe 1.5 times as fast. Three to >four times the speed is a statement that needs support. I think you're both right. We I benchmarked the Sun3 for engineering type loads it was only a bit faster than the 11/780, certainly less than 2:1. When I tested for text processing numbers were in the 2.5-3.2 range, and software development values were mostly between 2 and 3. My impression is that the Dhrystone is more representative of an engineering load. -- -bill davidsen ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\ \ unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen chinet ------/ sixhub ---------------------/ (davidsen@ge-crd.ARPA) "Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"
bzs@bu-cs.UUCP (Barry Shein) (07/05/86)
>I think you're both right. We I benchmarked the Sun3 for engineering >type loads it was only a bit faster than the 11/780, certainly less >than 2:1. When I tested for text processing numbers were in the 2.5-3.2 >range, and software development values were mostly between 2 and 3. My >impression is that the Dhrystone is more representative of an >engineering load. > -bill davidsen In the first place, the Dhrystone I have shows the VAX/780 running 4.3bsd as 1662 and a SUN3/160 as 3764 so I'm not sure what the last sentence means in relation to the second sentence. The uVax-II got 1612, so 2-3 times is a roughly accurate statement (2.26 and 2.33 is more accurate, for this benchmark.) The "roughly equivalent to a 780" is probably due to a floating point mix. Perhaps you had an FPA on your 780 and only a 68881 on the SUN3 (standard, except the 3/50.) I think if you added the SUN/FPA you would see it go back up to where you expect it (roughly 2-3 times a 780/FPA.) Also, for "engineering workloads" make sure the disk (flavor) and memory (amount) are roughly equivalent with the 780 you are comparing to unless you have good reason to believe this isn't accounting for the difference. Wouldn't be fair to thrash a SUN3 to a SCSI in 4MB against an 8MB/RA81 VAX, would it? I suspect tho that the FPA explains it. I think your results should be better. -Barry Shein, Boston University