Buy8100/110NowOrWaitFor604?
Tony Herr
sil...@sydney.DIALix.oz.au writes:
>I am setting up a desktop publishing and a multimedia authoring business.
>I need to purchase a pile of equipment including a couple of PowerPC
>8100/110's. The timing of this exercise seems to be tricky with the new
>Powermacs on the horizon. I don't want my new investment to become
>redundant two months after buying it, but you can't produce work with no
>computer (or an order for a soon-to-be-shipped cpu)
>Question: Anybody know a realistic date for the shipment of the new
>PowerPC's, the PCI bus ones with the 604 processor. Also, is there an
>upgrade path for the 8100/110's. Will there be AV technologies built into
>these new machines ?
How soon do you need to start working? If you search hard you can
probably find a 8100/110 today. But the dealer probably ordered that
computer several months ago. I've managed to get two of these computers
and they each took over two months from date of order from Apple to
delivery. You can bet that when the 604 machines are announced, they will
be in extremely limited availability. So... If MacWeek is right about a
July intro for the Tsunami, add two months to that... Can you wait until
September/October?
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Herr - Computer Resource Specialist - DoD #1351
Bay Tree Bookstore - University of California
Ken Bull
I need to purchase a pile of equipment including a couple of PowerPC
8100/110's. The timing of this exercise seems to be tricky with the new
Powermacs on the horizon. I don't want my new investment to become
redundant two months after buying it, but you can't produce work with no
computer (or an order for a soon-to-be-shipped cpu)
Question: Anybody know a realistic date for the shipment of the new
PowerPC's, the PCI bus ones with the 604 processor. Also, is there an
upgrade path for the 8100/110's. Will there be AV technologies built into
these new machines ?
Ken Bull
Richard Frankel
(Ken Bull) wrote:
Ken -
You're dead on about not being able to produce any work with an order
form. So the question is, how much money do you lose by waiting? Do you
have contracts ready to go now, that will begin paying you NOW to produce
those nifty DTP and multimedia creations? If so, buy now! If not, why are
you wasting your money? Wait until the day you have the contract signed,
then get on the phone and don't hang up until you have tracked down
whatever macs are available that day. If you are persistent you should be
able to find top of the line systems.
Sure you will be more productive with a 604 based mac, but how much more
productive? If you are billing at a rate high enough to justify 8100's,
then you should be able to easily justify an upgrade come the fall if the
new machines are so much faster than what you have.
Here's the calculation I use:
Let's say you wait for your computer to do task X for 10 minutes every
hour. That adds up to 80 minutes a day, or 400 minutes a week or 1600
minutes a month. Now, just for argument's sake, let's say that your new
604 based mac is twice as fast as your 8100/100. So you save 800 of those
lost minutes, during which you can do billable work (assuming you aren't
off smoking cigs during that time). 800/60 = 13.33 hours saved per month.
If your billing rate is $30/hour, that gives you about $400 dollars saved
per month. Your upgrade (say, $2000) will pay for itself in 5 months.
Moral of the story? Upgrade or buy yourself a new computer every six months!
Richard Frankel
UC Berkeley
"It's funny 'cause it's true" -- Homer Simpson
Michael Kucsak
: Ken -
: Richard Frankel
: UC Berkeley
The only problem with that calculation is that even though the processor
may be twice as fast (or more) I don't see the actual gains equating to
that. There is more to speed than a fast chip or bus. Is the disk drive
twice as fast? Hard drive? Ram,Vram,Cache.....?
Let's be realistic. If you are going to do math to justify the expense
include the time spent on the phone ordering. Include time spent loading
software. I believe that this ludicrous attitude towards upgrading every
chance you get has got to stop. When I buy a computer I get what I need,
what works for me. Six months from now it still works. If you look hard
enough you will see that most upgrades are premature and not worth the
expense.
I would put a 7100/80 with $2000.00 worth of upgrades (RAM,Cache,Cards) up
against a stock 8100/110 with a great deal of confidence and have $1000.00
left over (according to my most recent mail order figures). By your
recolection what could $1000.00 benefit the business in other equipment
(modem,fax,copier....)
--
Michael Kucsak
Florida State University
Etnier
up
>against a stock 8100/110 with a great deal of confidence and have
$1000.00
>left over (according to my most recent mail order figures).
Yeah, and lets face it: no one is going to be able to get a Tsunami for a
LONG time, the new DayStar parallel processor rig may be even better... it
goes on and on.
I think the 8100/110 is a very risky investment: the IIfx of its time
because it is so tricked out with wierd coolers and special chips and
stuff. After waiting for months for an 8100/110 from a local dealer I
decided to cancel the order and wait for a Tsunami. Then the Daystar was
announced. Meanwhile I was waiting five-ten minutes for anything to happen
in Photoshop on my IIfx...
I gave up and mail-ordered a 7100/80av with 80Mb RAM. It works great. I'm
very happy. I figure in a year or two I can either sell the 7100, upgrade
it or stay with it. It seems like a bad time to jump on 604/PCI
technology: let it mature a bit and let supplies stabilize.
Matt Elliott
writes:
>I think the 8100/110 is a very risky investment: the IIfx of its time
>because it is so tricked out with wierd coolers and special chips and
>stuff.
I've been having no unusual trouble with my 8100/110. It works as well
as any of the other PowerMacs. I don't think you needed to worry about
it being another IIfx.
Matt
Richard H.S. Kim
until 4Q of 95.
Lee Fyock
<mell...@uiuc.edu> wrote:
The IIfx didn't have problems, it just turned out to be a dead branch of
the Mac family tree. At the time it came out, it was the highest branch,
so many people bought it. (How far can I carry this "tree" analogy? :-)
Unfortunately, Apple never released an upgrade and never supported with
system software half of the cool hardware in the fx (DMA, anyone?). And
so it died.
People that bought the "top-of-the-line" fx were kind of ticked when they
realized that it was a dead-end machine.
So, Etnier was saying (I believe) that the 8100/110 may be similar to the
fx in that it may be the fastest now, but if there are no upgrades for it,
it may turn out to be a bad investment.
Have fun!
Lee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Fyock The MathWorks, Inc.
fy...@mathworks.com Natick, Massachusetts
Etnier
>the Mac family tree. At the time it came out, it was the highest branch,
>so many people bought it. (How far can I carry this "tree" analogy? :-)
>Unfortunately, Apple never released an upgrade and never supported with
>system software half of the cool hardware in the fx (DMA, anyone?). And
>so it died.
>So, Etnier was saying (I believe) that the 8100/110 may be similar to the
>fx in that it may be the fastest now, but if there are no upgrades for
it,
>it may turn out to be a bad investment.
There was a bit more to it than that. There were peculiarities in the fx
that meant a substantial amount of software had to be rewritten for it:
particularly concerning the floppy drive and copy-protected software, if I
remember. The first couple of years I owned my IIFX involved a lot of time
explaining things to developers.
My understanding of the 8100/110 is that there is substantially more than
a faster clock to differentiate it from the 100: this makes me nervous.
M. Sun
[lines deleted...Macintosh IIfx]
>There was a bit more to it than that. There were peculiarities in the fx
>that meant a substantial amount of software had to be rewritten for it:
>particularly concerning the floppy drive and copy-protected software, if I
>remember. The first couple of years I owned my IIFX involved a lot of time
>explaining things to developers.
>My understanding of the 8100/110 is that there is substantially more than
>a faster clock to differentiate it from the 100: this makes me nervous.
As I understand it, the major difference is that the 110 MHz version
has fixed the I/O flaw (which caused even the 8100/80 to do transfers at no
greater than Quadra-840AV-speeds). The 8100/110 also does not have an AV
version, since Apple assumes that anyone who seriously worries about the I/O
problem also needs something better than the stock AV card.
None of the new PowerMacs (6100/66, 7100/80, 8100/100 _not_ 110) has
the fixed I/O, just the 8100/110. It also costs _WAY_ more than the 8100/100.
So hopefully the 8100/110 doesn't introduce new problems, since it just fixes
what was originally intended in the 8100 anyways. (Hopefully, that is... ;)
--
-M. Sun
Ibrahim Mohammed
rk...@mars.uucp (Richard H.S. Kim) wrote:
>From what I've heard, IBM and Moto won't start volume shipments of the 604
>until 4Q of 95.
Are you confident of your source? Apple is shipping two 604 machines this
summer.
Later,
Ibrahim
Charles Eicher
sun...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (M. Sun) wrote:
> As I understand it, the major difference is that the 110 MHz version
> has fixed the I/O flaw (which caused even the 8100/80 to do transfers at no
> greater than Quadra-840AV-speeds).
well, you obviously haven't run any benchmarks on an 8100/110.. If you run
something like MacBench, you'll notice the 8100/110 unit has an
astonishing 4.4Mb/sec sustained transfer rate on large files, which the
drive is optimized for (they figured you'd be transferring huge video data
files, or large image files).
HOWEVER, the 110 falls flat on small file transfers. Macbench reports the
8100/110 drive is substantially slower, sometimes even 60% slower than a
quadra 840 hard disk.
There has been some criticism lately that the MacBench standard quadra
benchmark was made on a CPU with a prototype drive that is much faster
than the current shipping model. However, this doesn't change the fact
that the 8100/110's speed sucks when it comes to small file transfers.
------------------
Charles Eicher
cei...@netins.net
------------------
Ed Wynne
Charles Eicher <cei...@netins.net> wrote:
>In article <sunmx2.7...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
>sun...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (M. Sun) wrote:
>
>> As I understand it, the major difference is that the 110 MHz version
>> has fixed the I/O flaw (which caused even the 8100/80 to do transfers at no
>> greater than Quadra-840AV-speeds).
>
>well, you obviously haven't run any benchmarks on an 8100/110.. If you run
>something like MacBench, you'll notice the 8100/110 unit has an
>astonishing 4.4Mb/sec sustained transfer rate on large files, which the
>drive is optimized for (they figured you'd be transferring huge video data
>files, or large image files).
>
>HOWEVER, the 110 falls flat on small file transfers. Macbench reports the
>8100/110 drive is substantially slower, sometimes even 60% slower than a
>quadra 840 hard disk.
>
For large file transfers the file manager isn't really doing that much,
for small file transfers the file manager is doing a ton of processing
compared to the disk IO...can you say emulated file manager? Of course
the 840AV is faster!
-ed
Eric W. Sydor
I purchased an 8100/80 about a year ago (yes time does fly), and I've had
so much fun on this machine! THe problem I see, if i was in the market to
buy a new computer is the changing which is about to occur.
The 8100/100(110) are very, very nice machines which offer faster speed.
But, the 604 8100 will be almost 80% different than the 8100's out today.
You're going to find DIMM's (replacing the SIMMS) (RAM) which will enable
the new 8100 (I believe it's either called the Nitro, or Tsunami (nickname
that is)). The DIMM's will enable the new mac to have up to 1 gig of RAM
(yes, i'm not kidding).
SCSI speed, and the new PCI slots will greatly increase the speed of the
computer. The mother board on the new computer line will come in two
pieces, the main mother board, and the actual PPC chip will be sorta a
card. So if a new chip (say the 605) all you have to do is take out the
604, and slide in the new one.
I have more info on these machines, if you have any questions and want to
know more write to "sy...@aol.com".
If I were you, I'd wait the couple of months for the new system, it's
gonna be so different (you might also wait till the clones really arrive).
Sydor
Charles Eicher
Wynne) wrote:
> For large file transfers the file manager isn't really doing that much,
> for small file transfers the file manager is doing a ton of processing
> compared to the disk IO...can you say emulated file manager? Of course
> the 840AV is faster!
yes, and supposedly more of the file manager was native in the 7.5 update,
but surprisingly, my 8100/110 hard drive benchmarks even SLOWER with the
update..!
Noah Daniels
(Charles Eicher) wrote:
Can you say MODE SWITCHING? I had thought none of the FM was native, but I
could be wrong. Still, file access (and launching Simpletext) will be
painfully slow until the FM is native - Marconi?
--
-=Noah M. Daniels=-
{ndan...@cc.swarthmore.edu}
"Gott Wuerfelt Nicht" - Albert Einstein
(God does not play dice)
Gene
(Charles Eicher) writes:
> yes, and supposedly more of the file manager was native in the 7.5
> update, but surprisingly, my 8100/110 hard drive benchmarks even SLOWER
> with the update..!
There's nothing in the ReadMe or in any published reports on the 7.5.1
update to indicate any changes in the file manager. Performance should not
be terribly different from 7.5 in terms of drive speed.
Peace,
Gene Steinberg
America Online Forum Leader, Macintosh Multimedia Forum
Author, "Using America Online" & "Using The Macintosh/Special Edition"
Charles Eicher
> There's nothing in the ReadMe or in any published reports on the 7.5.1
> update to indicate any changes in the file manager. Performance should not
> be terribly different from 7.5 in terms of drive speed.
except for the indisputable fact that performance is measurably worse. And
that this has been verified by many people, even using simple benchmarks
like MacBench.
While I am sure that your AOL kiddies excitedly anticipate your outbursts
of flatulence, some of us have actually TESTED these performance
parameters, as opposed to declaring how things "should" be.
Charles Eicher
English) wrote:
> Gene has published a popular how-to book on using the Mac. While it is
> always possible that he is incorrect on a subject, to accuse him of being
> an "AOL kiddie" is rather silly.
Gene and I have crossed swords before. Gene is a professional know-it-all
who often speaks as if he knows something with certainty, when he clearly
is talking off the top of his head. As in this case. Gene never did the
benchmarks, so he couldn't possibly know what he's talking about. Yet he
blazes ahead, telling me how it SHOULD be, ignoring my factual data about
how it IS.
I never accused him of being an AOL kiddie, I only asserted that his
half-baked advice is suitable only for AOL kiddies. Perhaps they will
believe everything he says, but I know better.
Robert Cassidy
(Charles Eicher) wrote:
And then there are those of us who have performed some of the very same
tests and found that performance was not terribly different (<5%) from 7.5
to 7.5.1.
I guess that means that the fact is at the very least disputable.
Also, the previous poster stated that there is nothing to indicate that
any changes were made to the File Manager at all - if you have found
something published which details the changes, by all means share it with
us. Performance as a *result* of the File Manager *should* not have
changed if the File Manager has not changed. Has anybody been able to
directly test the File Manager (and ONLY the File Manager) to determine if
it is at fault and not some other element of the OS? (It's not an easy
thing, BTW)
You know, I'm glad that you've tested all of these things but it's no
reason to be an ass...
--
Bob Cassidy
UC Irvine
Robert Cassidy
> In article <3nmtf9$9...@news.primenet.com>, eng...@primenet.com (Lawson
> English) wrote:
>
> > Gene has published a popular how-to book on using the Mac. While it is
> > always possible that he is incorrect on a subject, to accuse him of being
> > an "AOL kiddie" is rather silly.
>
>
> Gene and I have crossed swords before. Gene is a professional know-it-all
> who often speaks as if he knows something with certainty, when he clearly
> is talking off the top of his head. As in this case. Gene never did the
> benchmarks, so he couldn't possibly know what he's talking about. Yet he
> blazes ahead, telling me how it SHOULD be, ignoring my factual data about
> how it IS.
Gene never indicated that there was no slowdown. He merely indicated that
File Manager *should* not be the cause of the slowdown. I don't doubt that
your benchmarks say there is a slowdown - I question whether the File
Manager is at fault. Tell us how you came to the conclusion that the File
Manager, and not some other part of the OS, is at fault and perhaps we'll
stop questioning you and investigate further.
Gene never left me with the impression that he knew it all or that he knew
for certain that the File Manager was not to blame. He simply stated that
all published information indicates that the File Manager didn't change
and that it shouldn't be at fault - correct him if he is wrong - you have
not done that - all you have done is insult him.
Lawson English
[snipt]
: While I am sure that your AOL kiddies excitedly anticipate your outbursts
: of flatulence, some of us have actually TESTED these performance
: parameters, as opposed to declaring how things "should" be.
Gene has published a popular how-to book on using the Mac. While it is
always possible that he is incorrect on a subject, to accuse him of being
an "AOL kiddie" is rather silly.
Stupid, even.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Eicher
(Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
> And then there are those of us who have performed some of the very same
> tests and found that performance was not terribly different (<5%) from 7.5
> to 7.5.1.
On an 8100/110 with a stock 2gig hard disk? Sure, the averaged figures
are only 5% slower. Try doing the individual MacBench disk tests, the ones
you have to customize it to perform, the really small file transfers. Then
let me know what you find. I got results as much as 17% slower on certain
tests.
> I guess that means that the fact is at the very least disputable.
Do you intend to start a debate asserting that 5 is NOT greater than 0?
Feel free to proceed, but leave me out of it.
Even at your low 5% figure, it still sounds like a measurable slowdown to me.
Gene
(Charles Eicher) writes:
> except for the indisputable fact that performance is measurably worse.
> And that this has been verified by many people, even using simple
> benchmarks like MacBench.
>
> While I am sure that your AOL kiddies excitedly anticipate your
> outbursts of flatulence, some of us have actually TESTED these
> performance parameters, as opposed to declaring how things "should" be.
Since you are unable to respond to a message in a mature manner, and you
have ignored my private requests for documentation, I'll only say this:
I contacted one of the product managers at FWB (of whose SCSI credentials
there is no doubt, regardless of which online service one uses), and asked
if such a problem had ever been confirmed with the 8100/110 and 7.5.1. The
answer was no.
Additionally, my own forum on America Online is frequented by a number of
digital video professionals who are very concerned about getting the
maximum possible transfer speeds from their computers. They will complain
of a slowdown of every 100-200K/sec. None of them using 8100/110s reports
a problem such as you describe.
Until you are prepared to provide documentation that demonstrates
otherwise (and maybe you'll refrain from snide comments that do not
reflect well on yourself), there's not much anyone can do to help you
resolve this issue.
Robert Cassidy
(Charles Eicher) wrote:
> In article <rmcassid-270...@dante.eng.uci.edu>, rmca...@uci.edu
> (Robert Cassidy) wrote:
>
> >
> > And then there are those of us who have performed some of the very same
> > tests and found that performance was not terribly different (<5%) from 7.5
> > to 7.5.1.
>
> On an 8100/110 with a stock 2gig hard disk? Sure, the averaged figures
> are only 5% slower. Try doing the individual MacBench disk tests, the ones
> you have to customize it to perform, the really small file transfers. Then
> let me know what you find. I got results as much as 17% slower on certain
> tests.
No, on a 7100/80 with a stock 700MB hard drive.
I did run all of the MacBench individual tests - it took forever. Most of
the tests were within 5% of the 7.5 figures. But let me point out that if
I run those tests every week, I get different figures each time - and they
vary by as much as 5%. I never said that I consistently saw a 5% slowdown.
Sometimes the tests came out FASTER. I said that the performance was
within 5% (that's a +/- kinda thing, you know). I did get results as much
as 17% slower on certain tests, but for individual tests with small files
you can see upwards of 17% difference just by *where* the files are read
and written on the disk. Trust me, 5% is not a *significant* difference
when your margin of error has to be at least that much. You yourself imply
that the results only vary widely for small file transfers - no shit -
they are small transfers that should have large margins of error.
Furthermore, I never recall reading anywhere in the MacBench documentation
that their tests only involved the File Manager. Hell, I don't recall that
their tests even *use* the File Manager. Sorry, but there are a lot of
other things to account for that 5% other than the File Manager.
> > I guess that means that the fact is at the very least disputable.
>
> Do you intend to start a debate asserting that 5 is NOT greater than 0?
> Feel free to proceed, but leave me out of it.
I am more than willing to assert that +/- 5% is NOT necessarily greater than 0.
> Even at your low 5% figure, it still sounds like a measurable slowdown to me.
It is not measurable - it *might* be detectable, but I don't for a minute
believe that it is significant enough to be measurable.
Charles Eicher
I have been receiving 5-6 messages daily from Gene Steinberg, harassing
me, and challenging me to prove my assertions of hard drive problems.
Despite my response that he should just go and run the tests himself, and
my providing him with exact methodology for doing this, he refuses to do
so. And I refuse to provide him with my test results unless he does. I
don't get paid to do Gene's research.
I also asked in each private message for him to cease and desist his
campaign of harassing emails. He said:
> If you continue to make threats online or privately, or engage in any further
> personal attack against me in a Newsgroup, I shall file the appropriate
> complaints with your Internet provider.
so, I will publicly state the 2 following things:
1. I never made any threats against Gene. I only told him that if he
didn't stop sending me a constant stream of email, I would complain to the
AOL Terms of Service department, and lodge a complaint for harassment. If
that's a threat, it is only the threat of Gene's harassing actions being
exposed. I have already lodged that complaint with AOL.
2. I have a Constitutional Right to state that I think Gene is a big
windbag, and that the First Amendment gives me the absolute right to state
that I think Gene is an idiot that can't stand to be proven wrong.
So, gene, there you are. I made a personal "attack".. Go ahead and
complain. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. The
Internet isn't AOL, where everyone has to be nicey-nice to people like
Gene who don't know what they're talking about.
Gene
(Charles Eicher) writes:
> just in case anyone cares:
>
> I have been receiving 5-6 messages daily from Gene Steinberg, harassing
> me, and challenging me to prove my assertions of hard drive problems.
>
> Despite my response that he should just go and run the tests himself,
> and my providing him with exact methodology for doing this, he refuses
> to do so. And I refuse to provide him with my test results unless he
> does. I don't get paid to do Gene's research.
Just in case anyone cares, let me state flat-out that what you have read
in Charles Eicher's letter is false, absolutely.
I have sent this person a total of 7 private e-mail messages over the
entire time I've been aware of his existence. None of those letters
contains a threat or harassing statement, just requests for more
information on his claims about a performance hit on his 8100/110 after
installing the System 7.5.1 upgrade. I claim no copyright on these letters
and they are freely available to anyone who cares to look them over
further (if anyone truly is interested :)
In response, he has taken the same tact that he does in the message I am
quoting and previous messages posted in this newsgroup, using threats,
vulgar and abusive language rather than provide any meaningful degree of
support for his assertions.
He has also threatened on several occasions in his e-mail to me that he
will file false complaints against me with AOL's Terms of Service staff
(the letters have been submitted to his Internet provider for further
consideration).
I do not intend to respond further to any of these incredible, absurd
claims, and I suggest that readers of this newsgroup ignore this person's
threats and unproven statements (as I have done) and get on with the
business of discussing the the issues in a responsible, adult manner.
Charles Eicher
> Just in case anyone cares, let me state flat-out that what you have read
> in Charles Eicher's letter is false, absolutely.
Gene, give it up. You're out of your league.
I'm already pursuing action through AOL. They wil verify the truth of my
accusations, since they can pull up copies of your old outgoing email,
with time and date stamps. Sending 6 emails in one day, when the recipient
clearly tells you to NOT send him further email, is harassment.
I wonder what you'd do without your free AOL account to pontificate on
everything. Consider it before posting any more harassing messages. You're
becoming unhinged.
Gene
(Robert Cassidy) writes:
> I did run all of the MacBench individual tests - it took forever. Most
> of the tests were within 5% of the 7.5 figures. But let me point out
> that if I run those tests every week, I get different figures each time
> - and they vary by as much as 5%. I never said that I consistently saw a
> 5% slowdown.
This response is meant for you, Robert, and for other readers of this
newsgroup.
I am not going to continue to respond to a certain person's irrational
statements and childish behavior, as I'm sure you've read his messages
too, Robert, and may feel the same as I do at this point.
Instead, I want to add to what you wrote, because I did have an 8100/110
equipped with the 2GB IBM drive checked with MacBench 2.0 to see if there
was any basis to conclude that System 7.5.1 caused an unexplainable
degradation in some disk performance results.
Here's the setup:
The computer was started with a default disk cache of 96K. A clean System
7.5 was installed; no non-Apple extensions were added.
Two disk suite trials were run, each separated by a restart (extensions
running).
The System 7.5.1 update was installed with extensions off.
Two disk suite trials were run, each separated by a restart (extensions
running).
The results showed that totals were all within 1% of each other, with the
7.5.1 tests yielding the higher benchmark. Two disk tests during one of
the disk suites performed under 7.5 were unacountably faster than the
other benchmarks, but were not repeated in the second test. This
indicates, as you state, how results may vary from one test to the next
(which is why I wanted to have everything done twice, to get a trend).
These tests do demonstrate that claims of a pronounced performance
degration involving the IBM 2GB drive, the 8100/110 and the System 7.5.1
update are not supported.
Since the person who originally voiced such a claim refuses to provide any
evidence on which to judge the posted results, I would prefer to suggest
to everyone that we get on with our lives and deal with some real issues
instead (and there are plenty of those to consider).
Charles Eicher
> The results showed that totals were all within 1% of each other, with the
> 7.5.1 tests yielding the higher benchmark.
and which results were those? Was this the overall averaged figure, or was
it the small (under 32k) tests? Personally, I doubt you ever ran the
tests. You could easily have posted the macBench summary as a text file.
As I have repeatedly stated: None of the standard test suite will
illustrate the problem. You have to customize the test suite to include
ALL the disk tests, especially the small file throughput tests. And you
clearly DIDN'T run these tests, or you would have noticed the results...
But again, this is typical of Gene's "arguments".. Change the rules
halfway through, then declare victory when your one-sided tests show only
your point of view.
> Since the person who originally voiced such a claim refuses to provide any
> evidence on which to judge the posted results,
I'll provide the evidence to YOU, Gene, ONLY after you follow the testing
protocol that I outlined, and then, I won't NEED to send it to you,
because it will then be obvious to even a clueless person like yourself.
Don't blame ME if you didn't find the result, because you stacked the deck
to prove your own point. I provided you with sufficient detail to run the
benchmark correctly, you just chose to ignore the correct methodology.
I would prefer to suggest
> to everyone that we get on with our lives and deal with some real issues
> instead (and there are plenty of those to consider).
Yeah, particularly since the AOL TOS Monitors told you to stop harassing
me. And every day, I'm getting letters from other people telling me about
your obnoxious behaviour in other newsgroups. Gene, you really need to GET
A LIFE.
Robert Cassidy
> Since the person who originally voiced such a claim refuses to provide any
> evidence on which to judge the posted results, I would prefer to suggest
> to everyone that we get on with our lives and deal with some real issues
> instead (and there are plenty of those to consider).
I agree...