Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pdn!oz!alan
From: alan@oz.nm.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: SPECmarks
Message-ID: <7473@pdn.paradyne.com>
Date: 26 Feb 90 04:42:47 GMT
References: <7393@pdn.paradyne.com> <3300102@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Sender: usenet@pdn.paradyne.com
Reply-To: alan@oz.paradyne.com (Alan Lovejoy)
Organization: AT&T Paradyne, Largo, Florida
Lines: 17

In article <3300102@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>I question the utility of a benchmark that is not a standard, a
>benchmark that is an ever-moving target composed of "today's"
>programs, a piece of software incapable of predicting the performance
>of "tomorrow's" programs on "today's" computers.

And just how relevant would ANY benchmark designed in 1955 be to today's
computing?  Just how relevant will today's software resource utilization
profiles be to the computing of the middle of the next century? Consider 
the differences between Cobol, Smalltalk-80 and a neural net program!  Then
consider that such differences will seem miniscule to the people of 2050!


____"Congress shall have the power to prohibit speech offensive to Congress"____
Alan Lovejoy; alan@pdn; 813-530-2211; AT&T Paradyne: 8550 Ulmerton, Largo, FL.
Disclaimer: I do not speak for AT&T Paradyne.  They do not speak for me. 
Mottos:  << Many are cold, but few are frozen. >>     << Frigido, ergo sum. >>