HANK@BARILVM.BITNET (Hank Nussbacher) (11/14/90)
>From: Udi Netzer <netzer@ncd.com> > >Hi Hank, > >It is a long time since we spoke.I am now at NCD responsible for the >international sales. > >I saw your report regarding the subject posted on the net.Let me give >you some comments: > >1.The NCD server code you were testing is a pretty old code.Actually >this code (2.1 version) was >shipped since January.Currently we are shipping 2.2 and we are about >to ship 2.3 beta.2.2 is 30% >faster in terms of Xbench and 2.3 will be 20-25% faster than 2.2.The >current release 2.2 is the Some sites can allow themselves to perform benchmarks over a period of 2 weeks, others spread it out over a period of a few months. If I'm not mistaken the NCD benchmarks were performed in August and the local NCD distributor performed the installation. >2.The Xbench program is pretty limitted and we are proposing to run >X11 perf as a better >program.Actually the best test is the real application you are going to use. Xbench was used. Other volunteers are welcome to perform X11perf and report back to everyone the results. >3.We found that the main difference between X terminals are the >features you can get.Features like >local clients (local telnet,local LAT,local VT220 emulation,local >serial port),SNMP,ease of >use,remote configuration,our Xremote (an efficient protocol to run X >over serial line) and soon to >come a local window manager are the main reasons to NCD success. >NCD is the clear X terminal leader with more than 60% of the total >market (see the IDC market >report).NCD probably is not the market leader in terms of raw >performance but a leader in terms of >performance with real applications as well as in terms of >features,H/W and S/W reliability.Let me >mention again that the fact that NCD has a font caching machanizm as >well as a local window manager >will speed up the actual performance a lot although it would not have >any effect on the X bench >market. > >Hope it helps and I'll be happy to answer any additional questions/comments. > >Udi Netzer > >netzer@ncd.com Now this is how a vendor should be responding. Factual, no yelling, trying to point out the benefits of his product over a competitor's. Now let us look at the other side: >From: db@sunbim.be (Danny Backx) >To: xpert@expo.lcs.mit.edu >Cc: HANK@BARILVM.bitnet, wellfleet-l%nstn.ns.ca@mcsun.eu.net > >I am getting really frustrated with the bad benchmarks that Hank Nussbacher is >posting on mailing lists. > >He is spreading a 'router scorecard' on a monthly basis, to several mailing >lists. In this scorecard, he makes the same basic mistakes that he makes in >his recently posted X terminal benchmark. The basic problem is that he does >not want to listen to what the rest of the world thinks. I posted an X-terminal benchmark, not a router scorecard. To cross-post and bring in one item with the other is just sour grapes. >To be precise, in his 'router scorecard', Hank makes a comparison between >routers from different vendors, but for different targets. He compares Cisco's >AGS+, the high-end model, with Wellfleet's Link Node, the middle model. His >argument is that they have the same physical dimensions and weight. He refuses >to argue on the subject, but keeps publishing new versions of his scorecard. I have heard all the arguments. You can convince me otherwise by presenting a US dollar list price cost for an AGS, AGS+, LN and CN (with no comm cards, with 4Mb memory and SNMP software if optional) and let the pricing determine if the AGS+ is comparable to the LN. If the AGS+ price is within range of the CN I will alter the scorecard to replace the LN with the CN. >In the X terminal benchmark he publishes on Xpert, I see several problems : > >1. Hank compares the NCD models 16 and 17c to Visual models X19turbo and X19+. > Nothing is wrong with this, of course, but what he does is compare > Visual's high-end black&white X terminals to NCD's low end b&w (NCD16) > terminal. This creates a false impression about NCD's b&w terminals. > Note that the left-out NCD19 has the same screen dimensions as Visual's > X19+ or X19turbo. Even their weights are of the same order. > > An objective benchmark would also list the high-end b&w NCD's (NCD19) > as well as the low-end Visual (X15). The comparisons are based on the equipment provided by the local distributors. Not all models were available and the benchmarks were performed on what was around (by the vendors) at the time. In the interest of sharing information in the Internet, a practice common for the past 15 years, I posted the results. I am not Lanquest or Datapro or Gartner Group. If you want definitive benchmarks - commission any one of them to do it. >2. I don't know about the software versions that are used on the non-NCD > equipment. On the NCD's, an old version (2.1) of the X server software > was used. You can see this in the 2001 server version number. > > The current 2.2 version improves overall performance with 15..30%, > while the future 2.3 version will go even further. > >3. Hank says that on the NCD17c, the font "fixed" was unavailable. > This is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE. The font fixed is even permanently there > because so many X applications have it as their default. This is true > for every single NCD. > >4. Hank doesn't describe the method used for his measurements in detail. This > would be useful for several things : Xbench was used. > - do the same test on more X terminals, to add to the list > - verification of the correctness of (a) these results > and (b) the method used in the benchmark. > >5. Hanks benchmark is only a benchmark. Important points in the comparison of > different X terminals are : > - ease of installation > - administrative features > - ergonomic features > - connectivity options > - options for management of large sites > - ability to run local clients > - network management (SNMP) > >A final point I would like to make is the fact that Hank didn't do the bench- >marks himself. While this is a good attempt to avoid flames, I would suggest >him not to post any more of these magnificent examples of misinformation >on the net. > > Danny Backx > BIM Networks System Engineer I think we are beginning to see a change in how the Internet works. For many years, universities and other institutions participated in the network, assisted each other, shared information with each other. Recently vendors and distributors have joined the network, in an attempt to share in that information flow as well as assist their users in a more timely fashion. Unfortunately, Danny shows the negative side. Could it be by chance that BIM is the distributor of Wellfleet and NCD equipment in Belgium? Well, I don't need the headache. I can continue to run benchmarks or acquire them from others who have done many weeks of work. But I have no more intention of sharing them. You can thank BIM for the loss of information flow. >E-Mail: db@sunbim.be (or uunet!mcsun!ub4b!sunbim!db) > >Telephone: +32(2)759.59.25 Fax : +32(2)759.47.95 > >Postal Mail : > Danny Backx > BIM > Kwikstraat 4 > 3078 Everberg > Belgium Hank Nussbacher