Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!ginosko!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!orca!shark!adamsc
From: adamsc@shark.WV.TEK.COM (Chuck Adams)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Problems with XSTONES calculations in xbench
Summary: Yes, it is better to evaluate the known.  But
	 we are still at the mercy of that which hits the fan.
Message-ID: <4419@orca.WV.TEK.COM>
Date: 1 Sep 89 15:22:23 GMT
References: <4411@orca.WV.TEK.COM> <8909011324.AA03731@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: nobody@orca.WV.TEK.COM
Lines: 27

In article <8909011324.AA03731@expo.lcs.mit.edu>, jim@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Jim Fulton) writes:

> 
> I'll even go further and say that this is why any single number is useless
> without knowing the context in which it was generated.
> 

Right on.  I totally agree.

> I find it easiest to think of the rating as the cross-product of the various
> request timings  (including things like clipping, whether or not software
> cursors are used, number of subwindows, etc.) and the weighted profile of the
> application to be modeled (i.e. relative importance of each element in the
> set of server timings).  By plugging in different application profiles,
> you'll get radically different ratings for a single server.

But as of this point we only have one profile.  Even if it is poorly
documented it is documented and it seems like someone out there is
using it with many misconceptions.  As I stated before it is not
an unbiased weighting scheme and as such the bias should match the
documentation.

> 
> In other words, a server that is acceptable for software development may be 
> completely unable for CAD, imaging, wysiwyg, etc.

Exactly, thanks for the clarity.