CompuServe Messages

Larry, Sorry, but my analogy between MIPS and MPG is not, way off base. MPG ratings are based upon a known, fixed volume of fuel. BUT, what about tire termperature, road surface conditions, wind factors, weight of vehicle, weight of driver, size of engine, amount of acceleration along the test track, how much fuel is being fed into the engine and how much is being wasted (because of undo acceleration), engine timing, and on, and on, and on. THE POINT is that MIPS IS based upon at least ONE known factor (the cycle speed of the CPU), and MPGS IS based upon at least ONE known factor (the amount of fuel delivered to the engine). It is true that most CISC processors are in the 1 1/2 to 2 cycles for most of their instructions, but even if an all integer number test was chosen, YOU CAN'T GET ANY MORE INSTRUCTIONS PROCESSED THAN CAN BE DONE WITH INTEGERS ALONE. I AGREE WITH YOU, that MIPS by itSELF is not an adequate measuring "stick" for comparing 'system performance', but it STILL is ONE QUANTITATIVE MEASURE, just like MPG. By the way, haven't you ever purchased a car that a one of those EPA stickers on it that said "this car, through testing, has shown that IT will attain ….. MPG (on average, and depending upon how you drive, and .., and ..)". I would venture to say that there are very few cars that live up to their "performance rating", YET, don't you STILL use MPG as a QUALIFIER? I have yet to purchase any vehicle soley, or even primarily, because of this one "measurement tool" called MPG, but I DO keep it in mind, because it gives me a RELATIVE value that I can use to compare other vehicles. You say that "a mile is a mile and a gallon is a gallon", but is that true on every test? What is the allowable percentage of error? The WHOLE POINT that I am offering is that MIPS can be used as a RELATIVE guide, NOT an ABSOLUTE MEASURE of computer performance, and still be meaningful. I also AGREE WITH YOU that it would be good if there were OTHER <continued>