Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!noc.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!uknet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!funic!nntp.hut.fi!nntp!Pekka.Taipale
From: Pekka.Taipale@hut.fi (Pekka J Taipale)
Subject: Re: Diamond Stealth 24 giving 9.4 Winmarks?
In-Reply-To: balog@eniac.seas.upenn.edu's message of 19 Apr 93 23:20:25 GMT
Message-ID: <PEKKA.TAIPALE.93Apr23131448@gamma.hut.fi>
Followup-To: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Sender: usenet@nntp.hut.fi (Usenet pseudouser id)
Nntp-Posting-Host: gamma.hut.fi
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
References: <westesC5qvAp.BGJ@netcom.com> <VMP.93Apr20005222@zombie.oulu.fi>
	<121477@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 23 Apr 93 11:14:48 GMT
Lines: 16

In article <121477@netnews.upenn.edu> balog@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Eric J Balog) writes:
>When posting Winmark results, it is a good idea to give the version of 
>WinBench that you used to obtain the scores, as well as the resolution that
>you tested and the version of the drivers.

Doesn't anybody actually read the licence agreement of WinBench
before blindly running it? The licence agreement very clearly says
that details about hardware configuration, driver, resolution and
other relevant facts *MUST* be included when giving WinMark results.

Ziff-Davis wants everybody to do this and that requirement makes
sense, really! Plain numbers are useless when resolution, driver and
machine are unknown.

--
Pekka.Taipale@hut.fi
