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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.