Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!casemo!brian From: brian@casemo.UUCP (Brian Cuthie ) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac Subject: Re: Byte benchmark articles (Re: Mac C Compilers) Message-ID: <213@casemo.UUCP> Date: Wed, 12-Aug-87 11:25:18 EDT Article-I.D.: casemo.213 Posted: Wed Aug 12 11:25:18 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 15-Aug-87 01:48:20 EDT References: <3560@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <13885@topaz.rutgers.edu> Organization: CASE Communications, Columbia, MD Lines: 138 Summary: Irresponsible ! ! In article <13885@topaz.rutgers.edu>, rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu (Robert Hsu) writes: > I, too, have read the byte benchmark articles, and am of the opinion that > the Byte people are biased towards the 386. I guess that's to be expected; > since they have a history of belittling the 68k (remember the 68k special > issue that was SUPPOSED to be a separate issue? Or how about the IBM Piece > of Crap special issue that comes out every year?) ^^^^(note 1) > > Anyway, here is what I find hard to swallow about the two articles I've > seen (Mac SE/68020 acc. board vs. a Compaq 386, and Mac II against Piece > of Shit 2/80 [that's a lot of shit! :-]): ^^^^ (note 1) > ... > ... would the fact that > the 386 has only 2 (two! despite Intel claims otherwise) general purpose > registers and the 68k has 8D+7A=15 general purpose regs have made a ^^^^^^^ How is it that the Mr. Hsu can claim that the Intel processor only has two general purpose registers and then lump the 68k's Address and Data registers into one 'general purpose' goup. This is *highly* biased. > difference? Why the hell did the 68k designers put those regs there? ^^^^ (note 1) ... > Mac SE with an accelerator board) for comparison. The Compaq is the > top of the line 386 machine available today, so why not get a top of > the line 68020 machine? Why not a Sun/3, Apollo, or even an NCR Tower! I suspect because they were actually comparing implimentations likely to be owned by most people. Granted, the compaq 386 is less likely to be a home computer than the Mac. Still, it is more likely than Sun et al. > > There are other subtle things that people may not notice. E.g. > the benchmarks were compiled using MacC from Consulair (I believe. I'm > thinking of the first article.) I don't know how that compiler works, ^^^^^^^^ You can't be sure ????? ... > the Mac has stop whatever it's doing and read out the screen buffer > 60 times a second. On the Compaq they probably did something like: > C>sieve > 10000000 primes > C> > (They sure know how to exaggerate, don't they?) The point is, due to > its inherent operating mode, the Mac (and almost all 68k based machines) ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I would *really* like to see you back this up ! > has to take care of many other things (mostly maintaining the graphics > on the screen) while running a benchmark. The 386 does not. It doesn't > have to, it can't even handle graphics. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ This is plainly irresponsible !!!!! Any processor can handle graphics. Some are better suited to it than others. It would be hard to make any claims that the 68k was more suited to graphics than the 80X86. > > After degrading the 68k to their hearts content, the benchmarkers While you degrade the 80x86. ... > (This article was written without the Byte articles for reference. I only > used my memory, so there may be factual inaccuracies. I deeply regret ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Then why waste our (the net's) time with this meaningless dribble !! > any such errors. I also disclaim any responsibility for them.) I would too if I were you. > > Also, why don't one of you technical fellows out there who, unlike me, really ^^^^^^^^^ That would be just about anyone. > knows what he is talking about write a fuming letter to Byte and blast > the shit out of them? ^^^^ (note 1) > > -Rob > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for > rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications > RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 {...!rutgers!topaz.rutgers.edu!rhsu} > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Robert Hsu DISCLAIMER: I disclaim any responsibility for > rhsu@topaz.rutgers.edu inaccuracies, misinformation, and fabrications > RPO 6768 CN 5063 that appeared in the preceding article. > New Brunswick, NJ 08903 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > "Vidi, Vici, Veni" "Coito ergo sum" Nice touch. Two signatures for the price of one... All in all I find Mr. Hsu's comments to be ill founded, irresponsible and offensive. He obviosuly does not have any real understaning of the issues involved and is just as highly biased towards the 68k as he claims byte to be towards the 80x86. I did not read the byte article so I can't defend or attack it. Obviously Mr. Hsu can't remember it either. So who is he to attack it so violently ? I also have no intention of defending or attacking either processor. They both have the architectural strengths and weaknesses. I currently own a full blown AT and am trying to sell it for a Mac II. I have previously owned Macs and a Lisa 2/10. -Brian Note 1: There is *absolutely* no reason for profanity in a well presented argument. Mr. Hsu has obviously replace four letter words for reasoning. This type of argument style is nothing more than offensive and has no place on the net. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brian Cuthie CASE Communications Corp. Columbia, Md. 21046 (301) 290 - 7443 home ARPA: brian@umbc3.umd.edu UUCP: ...seismo!mimsy!brian@umbc3.umd.edu work UUCP: ...seismo!mimsy!aplcen!casemo!brian