Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!news.funet.fi!funic!santra!santra!apm From: apm@vipunen.hut.fi (Antti Miettinen) Newsgroups: comp.benchmarks Subject: Re: performance vector approaches Message-ID: Date: 30 Apr 91 13:50:14 GMT References: <1991Apr25.174542.100@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> <1991Apr29.125222.103@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> Sender: news@santra.uucp (Cnews - USENET news system) Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland Lines: 20 In-Reply-To: djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com's message of 29 Apr 91 18:52:22 GMT In article <1991Apr29.125222.103@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com> djbailey@skyler.mavd.honeywell.com writes: >Ideally, computer performance should be measured relative to the intended >use. Yes. As a matter of fact I now remember that a laboratory here at Helsinki University of Technology at least once used some funny method in choosing workstations. If I remember correctly they had a lot of numbers describing some characteristics of the machines. They then mapped these into two dimensional space. They also mapped an imaginary ideal machine to this representation and chose the machine which came nearest to the ideal machine. The method they used in reducing the dimensions is used in shape/pattern/whatsthecorrectoword? recognition. I know I should know what the method was. >I'm certainly not an expert at computer performance evaluation. Neither am I. Just saw this lonely post with an IDEA and felt it was nice ;)