From: Randal Whittle (rwhittle_at_usa.net)
Date: Sun Jan 04 1998 - 01:00:25 EST
At 01:03 AM 1/4/98 -0500, Robert Munzenrider wrote:
>The posting that came thru yesterday which reported Norton benchmarks for
>TP701s struck me as very strange. As I recall, the posting reported
>Norton SI ratings of 4.0 for a basic 701, and then 6.7 for a "Souped-Up'
>701, one runnig with an AMD586 chip (I inadvertently zapped the posting....)
>The performance numbers posted prompted me to load Norton Utilities 3.0 on
>my trusty little 701 to see what my machine would do.
>
>My machine: 701 with 75mhz cpu, 24 megs of RAM, running on AC power,
>Win95, & the original 720-meg hard drive.
>
>My Norton rating: 6.8. The base is a 386sx, which rates a 1.0.
>
>I don't understand the numbers the gentleman posted yesterday. Was he
>running off battery power?
Nope. AC. And yes, you did get correctly the numbers I reported.
The Norton SI rating I reported was from the Norton Utils for Windows 95,
version 2.0. Yours sounds either like the newest version of Norton Utils
that just came out (which I have not yet upgraded to) or a previous DOS
version of Norton Utils.
I don't imagine any other version of Norton Utils can be compared to
another--you'd have to do one from the same version, etc. The Winstone
scores are the same thing--you can't compare Winstone 97 scores with
Winstone 95 scores--its an apples & oranges comparison.
-------
Randal J. Whittle whittle_at_usc.edu (213) 740-7775
Director, Electronic Commerce Program
Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:53:52 EST