Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucf1vm.BITNET!news
From: news@ucf1vm.BITNET
Newsgroups: comp.lang.asm370
Subject: Re: disabling CTRL-BREAK (dos)
Message-ID: <9105282030.AA12274@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 28 May 91 20:17:49 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: IBM 370 Assembly Programming Discussion List
              <ASM370@OHSTVMA.BITNET>
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 17

In article <9105260616.AA17447@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, LDW@USCMVSA.BITNET
        (Leonard D Woren) writes:

|> Yep.  That's the problem with people who like to claim that a Sun
|> 4/490 is 23 mips -- so what?  If it wastes 90% of those cheap cycles
|> running grossly inefficent C code, the true speed is 2.3 mips.  If it
|> takes you 10 instruction to do what can be done in one instruction on
|> a 370, it's absolutely unreasonable to even talk about mips.  That's
|> why IBM resists giving mips ratings.
|>
Worst case I've seen of this was a SAS speaker on the
HP sell-the-new-HP-workstation videotape.  He shows a SAS application
running on a 3090/E61 with vector, crawling along.  Only problem is that,
to the best I've been able to determine, SAS C compiler does not take advantage
of multiprocessing OR vector ...

Dave