sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) (06/09/89)
In article <45@iisat.UUCP> promac@iisat.UUCP (Promac Systems) writes: >P,S. Who was that fello that got 5000 drystones out of one of these anyways > and how did he do it(I think someone had too much to drink one night. > Using the Drystone.c file from one of the first Fish disks and compiling > with Lattice 5.02 using: lc -m2 -v -L , I get about 3000 drystones, this > goes up to about 3450 drystones when using the -O option. If someone > has another copy of the drystone or any other normal benchmark could you > pass it on. Thanx I need some info. A friend of mine is accusing me of being on the Dark Side of the Force, because I am a Motorola fan (Strictly Amiga :-) and he claims that the Side of Light and Honor is the Great Intel. So could all you Jedi's out there help me out? What I want is some UNBIASED benchmarks (any kind, dhrystones would be fine) on the Amiga2000 , the Amiga 2500, and the 68030 version. If you also have data on the 80286, -386, -486, to compare it to, it would be appreciated also. Please help me force this evil intel-ect to retreat. I am getting really tired of hearing how much better intel is than motorola. Live long and perspire.. -- John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 Help fight continental drift.
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (06/12/89)
in article <780@corpane.UUCP>, sparks@corpane.UUCP (John Sparks) says: > Summary: help me obiwan. > A friend of mine is accusing me of being on the Dark Side of the Force, because > I am a Motorola fan (Strictly Amiga :-) and he claims that the Side of Light > and Honor is the Great Intel. So could all you Jedi's out there help me out? To use an older frame of reference, consider this. Intel's logo is always printed in BLUE. Their cohort and main supported is called "BIG BLUE". Only 680x0 machines (expecially, but not exclusively Amigas) have the power to create the music that can drive away these "meanies". So rest assured that you're on the side of goodness and light. > What I want is some UNBIASED benchmarks (any kind, dhrystones would be fine) > on the Amiga2000 , the Amiga 2500, and the 68030 version. If you also have data > on the 80286, -386, -486, to compare it to, it would be appreciated also. I get 11,000 Dhrystones on a specially tuned 33MHz 68030 system (apparently the GVP folks do too), but don't expect to see on from Amiga Real Soon Now -- the A2630 will be shipping at 25MHz (roughly 7,000 Dhrystones so far, but I have yet to put Roger's Lattice V5.02 compiler switches into my makefile; they seem to do the A2620 considerably more justice that I've been doing it). Realize also that [A] most of the Evil machines are running a single tasking OS, [B] that kind of machine looks better than our when running "small-model" code, far worse when running "large-model" code, and [C] raw integer performance is only one aspect of system performance; things like hard disk performance (the latest figure form our disk guru here is around 850k/sec, though the file system) are also better on Amigas that most if not all of the Evil machines. > John Sparks | {rutgers|uunet}!ukma!corpane!sparks | D.I.S.K. 24hrs 1200bps > ||||||||||||||| sparks@corpane.UUCP | 502/968-5401 thru -5406 > Help fight continental drift. -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) (06/13/89)
Lets grow up guys. Don't you get tired of processor wars?
Its not as if there is that much difference. An intellegent person
can learn to use both intel and mc hardware. Or perhaps
some of us aren't intellegent people?
/\ korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu Internet
/__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet
/ \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet
(_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) (06/13/89)
In article <25428@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) writes: >Lets grow up guys. thplplplffftt! >Don't you get tired of processor wars? Nope, not as long as weighty standards are being based on stupid architectures. >Its not as if there is that much difference. < spluttering coffee all over desk > HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahaHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEEHOHOHOHAWhawhawHAHAhehehe mmmf... damn. Not much difference?! What are we talking about here? Peter M. Yadlowsky | "Pay no attention to that man Academic Computing Center | behind the curtain!" University of Virginia | pmy@Virginia.EDU |
joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) (06/14/89)
korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) writes: > >Lets grow up guys. Don't you get tired of processor wars? >Its not as if there is that much difference. An intellegent person >can learn to use both intel and mc hardware. Or perhaps >some of us aren't intellegent people? No! No! I won't do it. Nope. Won't do it. Actually, the problem isn't the ability to learn how to use more than one CPU. The problem is that one of those CPUs was designed and built by Intel. Those f-ing segment registers make my brain hurt! Intel might make fast or reliable chips. But they weren't designed by anyone with experience with real assembly languages. (Designers were probably ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.) Yuck. -J -- Life is a cabaret (old chum). UUCP: rutgers!dayton!joe (Picts 1-13 are DHDSC - Joe Larson/MIS 1060 ATT : (612) 375-3537 now ready.) 700 on the Mall, Mpls, Mn. 55402
denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) (06/15/89)
In article <6607@dayton.UUCP>, joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes: > > Intel might make fast or reliable chips. But they weren't designed by > anyone with experience with real assembly languages. (Designers were probably > ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.) > The 8086 was designed at Intel simultaneously with the 432. The 8086 was expected to be a transition product for their 8-bit users (remember the 8085?) and wasn't intended to last long. Intel had placed its hopes on the 432. The designers were given the following command: Make it assembly source-code compatible with the 8085. That's the reason for the gothic non-orthogonal register architecture we all hate so much. The designers hated it too, but they couldn't do anything about it. After designing the architecture, they came up with a macro package which allowed one to run 8085 ASM on an 8086. But they gritted their teeth and did it anyway. After all, it wasn't going to be around all that long. Anyone out there remember the 432? Definitely a processor ahead of its time. It was designed to be an Ada engine, but you had to hook half a meg of RAM onto it just for its registers, even before you talked about code or data. This was back in the days when a 64K DRAM cost $20 each. In any case, the 432 bombed badly. ...and then IBM came along and bought 30% of Intel and decided to use the 8088 in the PC - and suddenly the 8086 was the hope for Intel's future. Their designers have been living with the 8086's illegitimate parentage ever since as they move up the ladder of performance. Motorola, of course, did it the right way: They designed a 32-bit architecture and then implemented it as a 16-bit data path machine. That meant they could build a 32-bit data path machine later with minimal external change. Generally speaking, I've found that technical people divide into the Intel-philes and the Motorola-philes. The correlation isn't 1.0, but I've found that more often than not an Intel-phile is an EE and a Motorola-phile is a programmer. The Intel chips have always been more friendly to EE's, and the 8086 is no exception. There the designers didn't have to emulate anything, and they did a nice job. Ironically, here Motorola got trapped. Their designers had to make the 68000 work with the 8-bit peripheral chips from the 6800/6809, because when the 68000 was released its own family of chips wasn't available yet. As a result, 68000 hardware tends to be somewhat more baroque, even though it isn't a multiplexed bus. Don't always assume that if you see something that was done badly that it was because the designers were incompetent, stupid or crooked. Often they were laboring under constraints about which you do not know, and you would have done exactly the same thing under those constraints. Steven C. Den Beste, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA denbeste@bbn.com(ARPA/CSNET/UUCP) harvard!bbn.com!denbeste(UUCP)
farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) (06/15/89)
In article <6607@dayton.UUCP> joe@dayton.UUCP (Joseph P. Larson) writes: > >Intel might make fast or reliable chips. But they weren't designed by >anyone with experience with real assembly languages. (Designers were probably >ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.) Just to keep things straight: the Z80 was designed by ex-8080 programmers, not the other way around. The 8086 was designed by ex-8080 programmers, too. And since it was (by at least a year, and I believe two) the only 16-bit processor in town, except for TI's weird chip, it didn't seem all that bad then. Still doesn't, once you consider the tradeoffs involved, including maximum 8080 compatibility, ease of implementation of certain types of HLLs (the thing was designed to run Pascal as efficiently as the other tradeoffs would allow), and the general state of MOS design in 1978. It may be too bad that Intel got locked in so early - the 68000 design is a lot cleaner, and Motorola's decision to scrap the 6800 pretty much entirely was a good one, IMHO. Intel's decisions weren't horrible, though, and did give them the very strong upper hand in the market. And, like it or not, they still have that upper hand. The 6502, on the other hand, doesn't compare to much of ANYTHING other than the 6502 :-) -- Mike Farren uucp: well!farren
bandy@well.UUCP (Andrew Scott Beals) (06/15/89)
In article <12201@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >And since [the 8086] was (by at least a year, and I believe two) the only 16-bit >processor in town, except for TI's weird chip, it didn't seem all that bad >then. Sorry, Mike, but National Semiconductor had a 16-bit chip way before the 8086 hit town. It was called the PACE and it was a multi-chip 16-bit big brother to their SC/MP (aka SCAMP) 8-bit chip. My memory also tells me that TI's 9900 hit the scene before the 8086 also, but it was difficult to get. If you wanted to roll your own processor, you also could have put together a 16-bit processor using four of the AMD bit-slice processors in parallel. Any more discussion should probably be directed to comp.arch.geezers :-) andy bandy@well.sf.ca.us
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (06/16/89)
In article <41426@bbn.COM> denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) writes: >Generally speaking, I've found that technical people divide into the >Intel-philes and the Motorola-philes. The correlation isn't 1.0, but I've found >that more often than not an Intel-phile is an EE and a Motorola-phile is a >programmer. The Intel chips have always been more friendly to EE's, and the >8086 is no exception. There the designers didn't have to emulate anything, and >they did a nice job. > I had always thought the same thing. Then I started to work with the latest processor chips from both companies. I think Intel has learnt to make their chips more friendly to programmers (at least to OS types). It is not clear to me if Motorola cares about friendliness to either EE or programmers. Before people flame me for being anti-Motorola, note that I have not specified any particular feature of any processor. You can flame me for not listing specific features but don't tell me I am wrong. Don't bother to ask me to list details because I won't. The only thing I can suggest is to look at the spec of the 88K and try to build a really faster system with lots of cache and lots of SRAM. (It is public information that we are building a 88K system). Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public I am just a small cog in a big machine. I don't represent nobody.
sjorr@rose.waterloo.edu (Stephen Orr) (06/16/89)
In article <600@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow) writes: >I had always thought the same thing. Then I started to work with the latest >processor chips from both companies. I think Intel has learnt to make their >chips more friendly to programmers (at least to OS types). It is not clear >to me if Motorola cares about friendliness to either EE or programmers. Just in case your not looking (and I know this is a detail) I'd much rather program a machine like the 030 when writing an OS, it has linked list assembly commands, (not Macros!). Now what else could you do to make programing an OS friendly? By the way, I'm both a programmer and an EE, and I've worked with both, and while I don't think I'll ever program a Mac, I'll take a 68000 series over any Intel product I've used so far... Stephen Orr { The opinions expressed herin ARE those of my employer... ... I'm self employed! - sjorr }
451061%UOTTAWA.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu (Valentin Pepelea) (06/16/89)
"Joseph P. Larson" <joe@dayton.uucp> writes in message <6607@dayton.UUCP> > Intel might make fast or reliable chips. But they weren't designed by > anyone with experience with real assembly languages. (Designers were probably > ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.) Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. The 6502 had the most beautiful architecture in its 8-bit era. The way it used its accumulator, indexed registers, and instruction execution was the summum of that bygone era. As you should know, the designers of the 6502 had left Motorola after losing a battle over the 6800's architecture. They used their knownledge to build that which today, only the 6811 may challenge. Valentin _________________________________________________________________________ "An operating system without Name: Valentin Pepelea virtual memory is an operating Phonet: (613) 231-7476 (New!) system without virtue." Bitnet: 451061@Uottawa.bitnet Usenet: Use cunyvm.cuny.edu gate - Ancient Inca Proverb Planet: 451061@acadvm1.UOttawa.CA
korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) (06/17/89)
In article <1622@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: >In article <25428@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) writes: > >>Its not as if there is that much difference. > >< spluttering coffee all over desk > >HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahaHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEEHOHOHOHAWhawhawHAHAhehehe mmmf... >damn. Not much difference?! What are we talking about here? > We were talking about the performance of varios microprossors. There is not much difference in the performance of systems operating with intel and motorola processors with the same processor speed and the same operating system. There is a difference in the processor languages, but neither is excetionally difficult to learn. Thats what I was talking about. /\ korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu Internet /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela>
schow@bnr-public.uucp (Stanley Chow) (06/17/89)
In article <14519@watdragon.waterloo.edu> sjorr@rose.waterloo.edu (Stephen Orr) writes: >In article <600@bnr-fos.UUCP> schow%BNR.CA.bitnet@relay.cs.net (Stanley Chow) writes: >>I had always thought the same thing. Then I started to work with the latest >>processor chips from both companies. I think Intel has learnt to make their >>chips more friendly to programmers (at least to OS types). It is not clear >>to me if Motorola cares about friendliness to either EE or programmers. > > Just in case your not looking (and I know this is a detail) I'd much rather >program a machine like the 030 when writing an OS, it has linked list assembly >commands, (not Macros!). Now what else could you do to make programing an OS >friendly? > Hmm, the only instructions on the 68K family that can be remotely associated with linked list handling are the CAS & CAS2 instructions. You are telling me these are good? Have you tried to write a two way linked list insertion routine? In a multi-tasking environment? In a multi-processor environment? I will bet you dollars to doughnuts that I can trap to supervisor level, inhibit interrupts, do the fiddling and return before any user level instruction seqeuence is done. As to your question of what other things make OS programming easier: most of OS programming problems are dealing with interrupts, providing process communications, trap/guru handling, debuging tools, ... Linked list handling is not often thought of as a major OS problem. Cache flushing and address mapping with process swapping and memory protection usually do present problems. > By the way, I'm both a programmer and an EE, and I've worked with both, and >while I don't think I'll ever program a Mac, I'll take a 68000 series over any >Intel product I've used so far... > Perhaps you have not used all the Intel products. And perhaps you have not done a real OS for multi-processors with the latest chips. Stanley Chow BitNet: schow@BNR.CA BNR UUCP: ..!psuvax1!BNR.CA.bitnet!schow (613) 763-2831 ..!utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!schow%bnr-public Me? Represent other people? Don't make them laugh so hard.
kevin@uts.amdahl.com (Kevin Clague) (06/18/89)
In article <25539@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) writes: >In article <1622@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> pmy@vivaldi.acc.Virginia.EDU.acc.Virginia.EDU (Pete Yadlowsky) writes: >>In article <25428@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu (Erik Korpela) writes: >> >>>Its not as if there is that much difference. >> >>< spluttering coffee all over desk > >>HAHAHAHAHAHhahahahaHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEEHOHOHOHAWhawhawHAHAhehehe mmmf... >>damn. Not much difference?! What are we talking about here? >> > >We were talking about the performance of varios microprossors. There is >not much difference in the performance of systems operating with intel >and motorola processors with the same processor speed and the same >operating system. > >There is a difference in the processor languages, but neither is excetionally >difficult to learn. I HATE religeous discussions but..... I have done a fair amount of assembly on Intel and Moto processors. I believe that the 68000 is much easier to program due to the general purpose address and data registers. On the 8086 based architectures, specific registers are used by specific instructions and this is a pain in the *SS. The combination of general register usage and widely applicable and powerful addressing schemes make the 680x0 family a big win. If you are refering to the grande picture where the 680x0 and 80x86 outperfom their 8 bit predecessors, then yes in that kind of scheme of things, it just doesn't matter. My Mom doesn't care if her computer has an 8 or 16 bit processor. Nor does she care whether it uses a segmented architecture or not. But then again Mom doesn't program in assembly either ;-) > >Thats what I was talking about. > > > /\ korpela@soup.ssl.berkeley.edu Internet > /__\ rioch BKYAST::KORPELA 42215::KORPELA DecNet > / \ of Chaos korpela%bkyast@ucbjade Bitnet > (_____________________ <aka Eric Korpela> Architecture, editors, OS's all are religeous issues.... no right answers... Hard to convince those who are religeous not to be eh? Better give up now. Kevin -- UUCP: kevin@uts.amdahl.com or: {sun,decwrl,hplabs,pyramid,seismo,oliveb}!amdahl!kevin DDD: 408-737-5481 USPS: Amdahl Corp. M/S 249, 1250 E. Arques Av, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 [ Any thoughts or opinions which may or may not have been expressed ] [ herein are my own. They are not necessarily those of my employer. ]
phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (Philip E Staub) (06/19/89)
In article <17837@louie.udel.EDU> 451061%UOTTAWA.BITNET@cornellc.cit.cornell.edu (Valentin Pepelea) writes: >"Joseph P. Larson" <joe@dayton.uucp> writes in message <6607@dayton.UUCP> > >> Intel might make fast or reliable chips. But they weren't designed by >> anyone with experience with real assembly languages. (Designers were probably >> ex Z-80 or 6502 programmers.) > >Excuse me, but you don't know what you're talking about. The 6502 had the most >beautiful architecture in its 8-bit era. The way it used its accumulator, >indexed registers, and instruction execution was the summum of that bygone era. IMHO, I think maybe you had better take another look. For example, look at the fact that the stack is *always* in page 1 of memory (0x100 - 0x1ff) and cannot be expanded. Look at the braindamaged definition of the "borrow" flag (= not carry) which causes comparison instructions to work backwards from any processor I can name either before or since. How about the scramble for use of the memory locations in page 0 (0x000 to 0x0ff) that everyone made to avoid an extra byte fetch in the instruction execution. These three alone would prevent me from voting for the "golden design" award, but I also seem to remember having problems keeping the pre-indexed and post-indexed registers straight. (Let's see here... do you use the x for pre-index or the y?). I knew within the first two weeks I worked on this turkey that it was not destined to become my favorite processor. Disclaimer: These are, of course, my own personal opinions. You are certainly entitled to your own. I admit that my previous programming experience (prior to using the 6502) on 8080/8085 and Texas Instruments minis biased my opinions. But I just couldn't resist the temptation to pounce on someone's "those were the good old days" 8-). Not that the current crop of processors are without faults 8-(. >Valentin >_________________________________________________________________________ >"An operating system without Name: Valentin Pepelea > virtual memory is an operating Phonet: (613) 231-7476 (New!) > system without virtue." Bitnet: 451061@Uottawa.bitnet > Usenet: Use cunyvm.cuny.edu gate > - Ancient Inca Proverb Planet: 451061@acadvm1.UOttawa.CA -Phil -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Phil Staub Tektronix, Inc., Vancouver, Washington 98668 phils@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM
daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie) (06/19/89)
in article <41426@bbn.COM>, denbeste@bbn.com (Steven Den Beste) says: > Generally speaking, I've found that technical people divide into the > Intel-philes and the Motorola-philes. The correlation isn't 1.0, but I've > found that more often than not an Intel-phile is an EE and a Motorola-phile > is a programmer. Interesting observation. I know of one case where it happened. My Dad managed a group that had to decide between the two for a rather long term project. All the EE types wanted to use Intel something-or-others, all the CS types wanted 680x0s. Looking at the difference between 1/2 a year of hardware work vs. three years of software work, they picked Motorola. The way hardware folks split is often based on what they used to fool around with. I used to design 6502 family systems, so I felt right at home with the 680x0 systems even before I got a job designing them. Lots of designers cut their teeth on 8080s or Z-80s, and for them the obvious next move would very likely be Intel. > Ironically, here Motorola got trapped. Their designers had to make the > 68000 work with the 8-bit peripheral chips from the 6800/6809, because when the > 68000 was released its own family of chips wasn't available yet. > As a result, 68000 hardware tends to be somewhat more baroque, even though it > isn't a multiplexed bus. Not really. Talking to a 6800 peripheral kicks the 68000 into a special bus mode which has nothing really to do with it's normal bus mode. This wasn't necessary to talk to 6800 peripherals, just made the job easier on hardware folks. The 68020/30 machines dropped these three magic 6800 support pins, but it's a relatively simple thing to recreate them if you have any 6800 or 6502 peripherals to talk with. > Steven C. Den Beste, BBN Communications Corp., Cambridge MA > denbeste@bbn.com(ARPA/CSNET/UUCP) harvard!bbn.com!denbeste(UUCP) -- Dave Haynie "The 32 Bit Guy" Commodore-Amiga "The Crew That Never Rests" {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh PLINK: D-DAVE H BIX: hazy Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession
charles@hpcvca.CV.HP.COM (Charles Brown) (06/22/89)
> In article <12201@well.UUCP> farren@well.UUCP (Mike Farren) writes: >> And since [the 8086] was (by at least a year, and I believe two) the >> only 16-bit >processor in town, except for TI's weird chip, it didn't >> seem all that bad >then. > Sorry, Mike, but National Semiconductor had a 16-bit chip way before the > 8086 hit town. It was called the PACE and it was a multi-chip 16-bit > big brother to their SC/MP (aka SCAMP) 8-bit chip. > andy bandy@well.sf.ca.us Forgive me for contributing to this drift, but I can't ignore errors this large (especially in what is supposed to be a correction). The IMP was the first commercial 16 bit microprocessor. It was not particularly related to the SC/MP, except that both were designed and made by National Semiconductor. The PACE was a ONE CHIP version of the IMP. All of these products were on the market before the 8086 was even announced. The prime limitation on the success of the PACE was probably its slow speed. It was implemented in enhancement-mode PMOS and was at the time a rather large chip. -- Charles Brown charles@cv.hp.com or charles%hpcvca@hplabs.hp.com or hplabs!hpcvca!charles or "Hey you!" Not representing my employer. "The guy sure looks like plant food to me." Little Shop of Horrors
guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com (07/11/90)
line food Could someone either email me the DHRYSTONE and MIPS benchmarks or provide an FTP pointer? Thanks! --- W. John Guineau guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com Digital Equipment Corporation Marlboro MA. 01752
seanc@pro-party.cts.com (Sean Cunningham) (07/14/90)
In-Reply-To: message from guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com If you know someone, or you're on People Link, there are 2 files full of benchmarks that test everything from CPU speed, RAM, and even diskspeed... The file numbers are 23139 and 23140, and they're in section 2 of the AmigaZone libraries. hope this helped... Sean //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// UUCP: ...!crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc | ARPA: !crash!pnet01!pro-party!seanc@nosc.mil | " Fanatics have their INET: seanc@pro-party.cts.com | dreams, wherewith they | weave a paradise for RealWorld: Sean Cunningham | a sect. " Voice: (512) 994-1602 PLINK: ce3k* | -Keats | Call C.B.A.U.G. BBS (512) 883-8351 w/SkyPix | B^) VISION GRAPHICS B^) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
GWO110%URIACC.BITNET@brownvm.brown.edu (F. Michael Theilig) (07/16/90)
On 11 Jul 90 12:53:18 GMT you said: >line food > >Could someone either email me the DHRYSTONE and MIPS benchmarks or >provide an FTP >pointer? > >Thanks! > I have DHRYSTONE 1.1 and would like to get 2.0, or whatever is the latest version. I'll make 1.1 available if anyone wants it. > >--- >W. John Guineau guineau@wjg.enet.dec.com >Digital Equipment Corporation >Marlboro MA. 01752 -------- F. Michael Theilig - The University of Rhode Island at Little Rest GWO110 at URIACC.Bitnet GKZ117 at URIACC.Bitnet "Gooooood coffee."