The 70 was rated 4.4 and the 917 is rated 10 (courtesy of
Wirt's page at http://www.aics-research.com/hp3000/relperf.html)

But I suspect these raw performance measures don't tell the whole truth.

I was amazed at the massive performance leap we experienced when migrating a
customer from a Series 58 (1.7) to 935 (5.9), and from a 925 (2.9) to a 937
(10).

In the first case, I think the concurrent move from CM Powerhouse to NM
Powerhouse contributed substantially to the performance gain, and we found
that Cobol NM positively screamed compared to Cobol CM. And of course Image
was NM.

If you stuff the new boxes with memory, and add spindles, you too should be
amazed.

And isn't it incredible that your old applications (all the way from a
Series 30 (0.5) up to 997/500 (262)) run at all on such a major architecture
shift - think of the poor tortured blue souls who over the years were
persuaded to move from System 34's to 36's then to 38's and finally to
AS/400's ;)

Regards

Neil



-----Original Message-----
From: Bailie, Jack [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:30 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Don & Micro XE; free old classic stuff


Bill wrote:

                But I continue to be amazed by the throughput of this thing
(917). I think it is
                even better than the old Series 70.

Back several years ago we upgraded from Series 70 to 917 and 927 (same
processor - just more users).  By recompiling code to native mode and
converting to mapped file access we got a 10 fold increase in throughput.

Jack