Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!sri-spam!ames!lll-lcc!pyramid!prls!mips!mash From: mash@mips.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Fairchild Clipper performance? (really: myths & magazines) Message-ID: <916@winchester.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Nov-87 01:37:19 EST Article-I.D.: winchest.916 Posted: Tue Nov 17 01:37:19 1987 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Nov-87 04:54:02 EST References: <56700004@ada-uts> <6745@apple.UUCP> Reply-To: mash@winchester.UUCP (John Mashey) Organization: MIPS Computer Systems, Sunnyvale, CA Lines: 62 In article <6745@apple.UUCP> bcase@apple.UUCP (Brian Case) writes: ...complaints on awful magazine practice.... >Isn't there something we can do?!?! Should we all write letters to these >editors? Should someone start a publication that actually has some >technical accuracy? I am getting so fed up with this situation that I >really believe there is room for a new trade magazine..... >I know John Mashey has taken the initiative a few times. John, what do >you have to say abou this situation? .... 0) At the rate of speed this business moves, writers and editors are hard-pressed to keep up, even when they try very hard. I have some sympathy for them, as they are beset by tons of information and argumentative folks. [Quick: explain why RISCs are good, but every RISC vendor has a different view of why theirs is better, and why Moto thinks both RISCs and CISCs are good! Sort that out in 2 columns..] This is why you see "vendor claims ....N mips"...: how does a harried writer know one way or the other? 1) Some try hard, some don't. Some will print almost anything, even gushing about performance leaps on products that aren't yet built, and without even a SINGLE actual benchmark number [the cited Electronics article was like this; however, I've seen other articles there that were the same, so it's not unusual.] Since many of the trade rags are controlled circulation, you can't usefully threaten to cancel your subscription! 2) About all you can do are the following: a) Write articles that are reasoned, and send them to magazines. Sometimes they might get accepted and run. b) Write non-flaming, well-reasoned letters-to-the-editor citing inaccuracies, or noting the lack-of-substance in an article. 3) I've written a lot of letters-to-editors. About 1 in 10 gets printed. However, I often get reasonable phone calls from writers / editors looking for more information, or thanking me for the letter, so I can't complain. 4) Regarding performance claims, perhaps letters can encourage magazines to at least follow a few simple rules and answer a few questions: a) Give me some real benchmark numbers, not just mips & mflops. Especially, don't tell me that it's 20X a VAX (on some Dhrystone), give me the Dhrystone numbers (usual caveats: substitute other benchmarks; opinions on Dhrystone well-known). b) Is this on a real system? Can we buy this system now? How much does it cost? c) If it's not on a real system, is it a careful simulation, or a guess? If it's a simulation, give me the parameters, like what kind of memory system, etc. d) If it's not available now, when will it be available? e) Always be skeptical about what one vendor says about another, especially with little or no backup data. 5) In general, it is hopeless to improve some of the rags, which are little above the National Enquirer. Some of the magazines try very hard, even to having their own benchmark suites which they want to watch running on a real machine. -- -john mashey DISCLAIMER: UUCP: {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!mash OR mash@mips.com DDD: 408-991-0253 or 408-720-1700, x253 USPS: MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086