InfoWorld Reply

[Mark Hinds <zoro@animal.blarg.net>]

  ---------- Forwarded message ----------
  Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 10:54:38 -0800
  From: John Broderick <John_Broderick@infoworld.com>
  To: zoro@tc.fluke.com
  Subject: Your letter
  
  
  Mark,
  
   We realize that by testing the OSes on differing platforms we have left
  ourselves open to criticism but felt it was worth it as the main focus of
  our tests was Java's portability. The performance numbers are really
  intended to give an indication of the overall usability of Java on varied
  platform configurations.  But you have given us fuel for a future article!
  Thanks for the heads up on the incorrect entry on our benchmark chart -
  2:09 is indeed the correct number.
  
  John Broderick and Brad Morrey
  
  You wrote:
  
  Regarding the benchmark at:
  http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayTC.pl?/970915sb7-bench1.htm
  The entry for Netscape4.0 + Win3.1 whose total time was reported as
  36:43 should
  read 2:09 (time I get when adding the other columns in that row)
  Why compare software on such vastly different platforms? Benchmarks on
  software must be run on the identical hardware to have clear meaning.
  Likewise,
  if you wish to compare hardware you must run identical software.
  Even so, why is the list NOT sorted by outcome?
  This would have put Linux right next to NT.
  I assume you're are intelligent enough to note that the NT Machine is
  about 60-70%
  faster than the Linux Machine. Had the linux test been done on
  equivalent Hardware,
  Linux would have been about 28 seconds, making it the clear winner all
  around.
  To me the big story here is that Linux out performs all the other
  comercial OS's
  This was an interesting benchmark, but it should be redone across
  similar Software
  and then Hardware platforms and sorted by outcome.
  Mark Hinds