Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi From: jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) Newsgroups: net.arch,net.micro.att Subject: Re: AT&T MIPS claim Message-ID: <585@scirtp.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Jun-86 19:11:10 EDT Article-I.D.: scirtp.585 Posted: Mon Jun 9 19:11:10 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Jun-86 06:24:02 EDT References: <577@scirtp.UUCP> <124@bakerst.UUCP> <583@scirtp.UUCP> <654@ihdev.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: SCI Systems, Research Triangle Park, NC Lines: 118 Xref: linus net.arch:3103 net.micro.att:1294 > In article <583@scirtp.UUCP> jimi@scirtp.UUCP (Jim Ingram) writes: > >I don't plan to present arguments that address previous postings in detail, > >because it seems the point has shifted. The ridiculous claim in the ad is > >that the UNIX PC has 75% of the power of a DEC VAX 11/780. > > > > Hmm. I would say that 1111 Dhrystones (REG) vs 1562 Dhrystones (REG) > (both running SysV) is pretty close (71%). Why is this claim so > ridiculous? What better method of *processor* comparison can you come > up with? > The ad isn't talking about "*processor*" power, it's talking about "computing power." I still find the claim ridiculous. If AT&T was talking explicitly about "*processor*" speed then talking Dhrystones would make sense. Besides, where does the ad mention or refer to Dhrystones, or any other benchmark? Since processor speed is not the issue, system performance should be measured at the system level, including I/O bandwidth, storage capacities, etc. This would provide a much more valid comparison of the two systems. > >If this is true, I should be able to replace 3 VAX 11/780 with 4 UNIX PCs > >(and support the 100 - 120 users on the Vaxen). > > > > Not at all. The way I read the `ridiculous claim', the benchmark > measurement fully justifies it. It could be construed as misleading to > those who completely justify computer purchases wholely on processor > speed, and (like the above statement to do with loading users onto both) > fail to take into account speed of peripherals, memory management > techniques and other important considerations. > AT&T, in their ad copy which wrongly focuses on processor speed, states that the UNIX PC "puts room-size computing power right on a desktop." Their ad is particularly misleading to those who want to avoid buying hardware based solely on CPU speed, since they do not let the reader know that they're comparing systems with CPU-only, unnamed, unreferenced benchmarks. (What "benchmark measurement" are you talking about now?) > >To claim such a replacement ratio, as the ad does, is clearly dishonest. > > > > No, as explained above. > Since AT&T claims to provide "room-size computing power on a desktop," such a replacement ratio is implied. > >A more realistic, but still rather absurd, replacement would be to replace > >a VAX 11/780 with 13 UNIX PCs, assuming that each UNIX PC will support 3 > >users as Ms. Vincent states. This would cost 115% of an VAX 11/780 if > >the "7% of a VAX" cost statement is correct. > > > > Well, this is quite correct, but ATT was surely not trying to tell those > prospective DEC-VAX buyers that they could buy a UNIX PC instead and just > suffer a small speed reduction and no other trade-offs. A smart buyer > in the market for a vax-sized machine is not even going to consider the > UNIX-PC, but a smart buyer in the PC market hopefully will because ATT > has *correctly* billed the power of the UNIX PC, and the PC buyer knows > the limitations of the class of computer system he is in the market for. > I think AT&T wasn't thinking about "smart" computer buyers - the ad's hooks all focus on naive and uninitiated buyers - especially those who may be fooled by the claims in the ad. > >AT&T should be fair and honest in its claims. They haven't been. > >The AT&T ad is a good example of taking an irrelevant measure of raw > >processor speed and building a lie from it. > > > > Those are very harsh words for a machine that *can* back up the ad, in > the sense of benchmarks. As I mentioned above, although the processor > speed is important, there are many other considerations to be tken into > account. They are not building a `lie' from this. Rather if a buyer > does not take other factors into account, he deserves what he gets. > They are merely playing up one of the better and more important aspects > of their machine. Is Mercedes building a lie when they say that their > cars are the best crashed tested in the world? They can back up that > claim (I hope), but this is not the only thing to take into account when > buying a car. This is advertizing. Welcome to the real world. > Besides, I don't think that DEC is going to lose a lot of VAX > sales from this. :-) > Perhaps I was a bit harsh... but I still feel AT&T was dishonest. If a dishonest statement is not a lie, what is it? All the stuff about Mercedes attempts to shift the point, as does the comment re the "real world." Making a statement that someting "provides 75% of the power" for "7% of the cost" implies that the less powerful, less expensive item is somehow a reasonable replacement for the more expensive item. Whether a UNIX PC is a better machine for many users now on Vaxen isn't the point of the ad. The point of the ad is a misleading comparison of two different systems that have few common applications (at the system- level), with the comparison skewed falsely in favor of the advertised product. What is especially galling is the lack of substantiation for the advertised claim. Dhrystones? How could we know that AT&T's claim was based on Dhry- stones? (Not that it would really make a difference....) > > I guess I need a disclaimer here - Although ATT will show up in my > organization line I don't work for them. > This is a good example of ambiguity. > > -- > > Paul Guthrie `See the happy moron, he doesn't give a damn. > ihnp4!ihdev!pdg I wish I were a moron. My God! Perhaps I am.' -- The views expressed by me are my own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other individuals or organizations. Jim Ingram {decvax, akgua, ihnp4}!mcnc!rti-sel!scirtp!jimi SCI Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 12557, RTP, NC 27709 919 549 8334