de5@ornl.gov (Dave Sill) (11/13/90)
[note: followups directed to comp.benchmarks] In article <9011121342.AA13630@sunbim.be>, db@sunbim.be (Danny Backx) writes: > > An objective benchmark would also list the high-end b&w NCD's (NCD19) > as well as the low-end Visual (X15). So unless he has one of everything he can't post any results? That hardly seems necessary. > The current 2.2 version improves overall performance with 15..30%, > while the future 2.3 version will go even further. He identified which versions were tested. >4. Hank doesn't describe the method used for his measurements in detail. This > would be useful for several things : > - 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. I agree it would be good to make this available. I don't know if it's necessary to include it in every report posted, if its availability is mentioned. >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) No kidding. Benchmarks is benchmarks. The existence of fools who would use benchmarks results as the only criterion for selecting a system should not preclude the distribution of the information to those who apply a more thorough selection process. >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. I encourage Hank to continue posting his results, and I hope people like you will continue to analyze his postings for validity and consistency. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) Martin Marietta Energy Systems Workstation Support