Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:5597 comp.unix.microport:3114
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!van-bc!sl
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.i386,comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: Comparison of 386 Unixes
Message-ID: <2354@van-bc.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 89 19:12:09 GMT
References: <4160@stiatl.UUCP> <717@pcrat.UUCP>
Reply-To: sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne)
Organization: Wimsey Associates, Vancouver, BC.
Lines: 32

In article <717@pcrat.UUCP> rick@pcrat.UUCP (Rick Richardson) writes:
>In article <4160@stiatl.UUCP> todd@stiatl.UUCP (Todd Merriman) writes:
>>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

>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.

Yes, I was very disappointed with that article. His results didn't jive with
my experience's at all. Also I'm not to sure I believed some of his facts
(like pricing).

I would say it was about the worst article I've seen in UNIX Today ever
(I've had a subscription since about the third or fourth issue). And in fact
it was probably the worst article of it's type I've seen in the last year.

UNIX Today had better stick to reporting Unix news (which they do seem 
competent at) until they can find someone who knows how to do a better
job at reviewing systems and software.

Does anyone at UNIX Today care to comment?

-- 
Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca uunet!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)