Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!rodan.acs.syr.edu!lynx.cat.syr.edu!anderson
From: anderson@lynx.cat.syr.edu (Joseph Anderson)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: New SparcStation
Message-ID: <1991Jan12.232413.237@rodan.acs.syr.edu>
Date: 13 Jan 91 05:16:52 GMT
References: <1990Dec13> <3300233@m.cs.uiuc.edu> <2810@cirrusl.UUCP>
Organization: Syracuse University
Lines: 17

In article <2810@cirrusl.UUCP> dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>In <3300233@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>     I think it's a laugh that Sun quotes "28.5 mips"....  Sheesh.
>     This tells me Sun doesn't know anything about "significant
>     digits".
>
>Assuming an uncertainty of 1.0, It's just as valid to say 28.0 +/- 1.0
>as to say 28.5 +/- 1.0.  But if the best available estimate is 28.5
>rather than 28.0, then it's more accurate (and less misleading) to say
>28.5 rather than 28.0 or 28.
>	Um, stating the 0.5 means variation at that level; if the error were
	+/-1 then it would have been state 28.; they stuck their advertising
	necks out for 0.5 +/-0.1 mips, let them prove they can accurately
	measure out to +/- 0.5 mips
	
	anderson@cat.syr.edu =/- edn