Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!uhccux!munnari.oz.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!yarra!pta!johnz
From: johnz@pta.oz.au (John Zornig)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Novice question:  measuring speed
Summary: I've got a better benchmark
Keywords: Has this gotten silly enough yet?
Message-ID: <5644@pta.oz.au>
Date: 19 Mar 91 22:18:23 GMT
References: <645@ssdc?> <Mar.18.21.39.27.1991.17252@pilot.njin.net> <1991Mar19.090929@IASTATE.EDU>
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Sydney
Lines: 15

In article <1991Mar19.090929@IASTATE.EDU>, john@IASTATE.EDU (Hascall John Paul) writes:
> 
>    Maybe we need a fhallingStones benchmark?
> 
I vote for the DropStone, This would be calculated as the terminal velocity
of a computer system freefalling from a great height. Attempts to reduce
air resistance by removing peripheral cabinets and monitors are not allowed.
A standard drop height should be agreed by having two separate industry
standards bodies select different heights and then see who can get the most
press. Of course the poor enduser who cannot afford to destroy $$$ worth
of equipment, or afford to hire a crane, plane, room on the space shuttle etc.
may opt for pushing the system under test off a desktop. 

I speak for no one.
JZ