Why is it that when people are being accurate you call them "IBM
apologists"?

For years IBM has had to fight the problem of simple minded customers
who read MHz as the be-all, end-all of how fast a computer is. CPW is a
way of comparing one AS/400 with another. It is a meaningful and useful
term in that it allows a customer to compare models.

AMD hasn't succeeded in jumping this same hurdle. Their processors are
faster (in workload) than Intel processors with a higher MHz rating. But
in our simple minded marketplace where buyers compare clock speeds and
pretend that is performance, AMD is losing sales they shouldn't.

While I am sure that IBM marketing would be happy to say they have a 10
GHz processor or whatever, they have been using workload measurements
since long before there was a PC marketplace so your contention falls
flat there.

Leif Svalgaard wrote:

>From: Walden H. Leverich <WaldenL@TechSoftInc.com>
>
>>While CPW may be arbitrary it's a lot more meaningful then MIPS for the
>>
>kind
>
>>of work done on an AS/400.
>>
>
>Oh, Walden, don't be an apologist for IBM here. I'm sure that *if* the AS/400
>ran at 10GHz, that number would be brandied about instead of a CPW of 100000.
>

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one
that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. 1 John 4:7





This thread ...

Follow-Ups:
Replies:

Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2020 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].