"Fred Kleinsorge" <[log in to unmask]> wrote in message
news:fzTB8.33$uF5.390298@cacnews.cac.cpqcorp.net...
> Andrew Harrison SUNUK Consultancy wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> >Fred Kleinsorge wrote:

...

> >> So there you go.  Assuming your predictions are right, McKinley will
beat
> >> USIII (and even your outside estimate of USIII getting faster doesn't
> take
> >> into account the tricked up compiler that caused the temportary
"upgrade"
> of
> >> USIII speed).
> >>
> >
> >
> >There you go again posting about something you don't understand.
> >
> >1. The optimisation used by Sun only effected SPECfp note that Bill
> >is talking about SPECint. Even you should be aware of the differences.
> >
>
> It should beat Sparc using any measurment.

Not only questionable (memory access latency and perhaps bandwidth as well
come immediately to mind, SPARC having on-chip memory glue today that hasn't
yet appeared in any Itanic forecast - right through 2004) but also
irrelevant to Andrew's comment (which was specifically about your gaffe
above).

  Heck, an old guy with a hand
> calculator will give it a good run for the money.

Perhaps you're confusing SPARC with Merced...

...

> Why would
> anyone run slowaris on a uniprocessor Sparc when an IA32 is faster and
> cheaper?

A better question is why anyone would run *any* OS on Itanic when Hammer
(and for a while Alpha) will be both faster and cheaper (and most other
competition at least one of those two).  I guess if you want to run VMS you
won't have much choice after a while, but most other Itanic OSs will be
available elsewhere (either natively or in some similar form of Unix).

- bill

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *