SPONSORED LINKS
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@usc.edu (213) 740-7775 Director, Electronic Commerce Program Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California