home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!sip1
- From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
- Subject: Re: OS/2 2.1 Observations
- Message-ID: <1993Jan11.172424.6884@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
- References: <726707394.0@nwark.FidoNet>
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 17:24:24 GMT
- Lines: 25
-
- In article <726707394.0@nwark.FidoNet> Robert.King@p27749.f29728.n24936.z8308.FidoNet.Org (Robert King) writes:
- > TFS> Incidentally, I do have some benchmarks on this new code, but there
- > TFS> are a couple reasons why I can't post them. The first is that the
- > TFS> Ziff-Davis license agreement says you can't disseminate the results
- >of
- > TFS> WinBench (strange though that may sound), and the second is that I
- > ^^^^^^^^
- > TFS> have a slight disagreement with the methodology that I want to
- >correct
- > TFS> first. Also, we couldn't get NT to install on the same machine.
- >I'm curious about WinBench. I thought I had been keeping up with
- >PC-Magazine for their entire publishing life, but I'm not familiar with
- >this program which I presume is related to their Benchmark package. Has
- >it been released for public use?
-
- Public use, yes, but the license forbids one from divulging the
- numbers it generates, incredibly. Therefore, I've been looking for
- alternative benchmarks which do not have this absurd restriction. I'm
- still investigating.
-
- --
- Timothy F. Sipples | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0i, available from
- sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
- Dept. of Econ., Univ. | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
- of Chicago, 60637 | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
-