Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:5584 comp.unix.microport:3105
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!pcrat!rick
From: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Comparison of 386 Unixes
Message-ID: <717@pcrat.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 89 03:28:21 GMT
References: <4160@stiatl.UUCP>
Reply-To: rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson)
Organization: PC Research, Inc., Tinton Falls, NJ
Lines: 24

In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes:
>To the 150 people who responded to my posting on 386 Unixes, and
>to other interested parties:
>
>This month's "UNIX Today" magazine (March 20 issue) has a review
>of the four major 386 Unixes.

I wouldn't put much stock in the compiler benchmarks that were
run in that issue.  The tested hardware configuration had
mixed speed memory - some 16 and some 32 bit (gag!).  The
various compilers turned in a 3 to 1 variation in performance.

Apparently, it never occured to the author that where the
process landed in memory might have something to do with
the wild variation in results.

UNIX Today succeeded only in proving itself to be no
better than all the other free rags.

-- 
Rick Richardson | JetRoff "di"-troff to LaserJet Postprocessor|uunet!pcrat!dry2
PC Research,Inc.| Mail: uunet!pcrat!jetroff; For anon uucp do:|for Dhrystone 2
uunet!pcrat!rick| uucp jetroff!~jetuucp/file_list ~nuucp/.    |submission forms.
jetroff Wk2200-0300,Sa,Su ACU {2400,PEP} 12013898963 "" \d\r\d ogin: jetuucp