Ken Nakata wrote:
> 
> Vincent BARAT wrote:
> >

> For example, it has been known that bytebench-3.1 result is greatly
> affected by the speed of unlink(2) system call which is noticeably
> faster on Linux than on *BSD (by default) due to so-called async
> metadata update (I could be wrong on this one...  this is from top of
> my head).
> 
> So, I suggest that you stop taking the benchmark result too seriously.
> Of course you *could* run Linux-m68k on your Centris just to prove L
> is faster than N, but I doubt it has any productive value whatsoever
> (not to mention L is not fully functional on the Centris/Quadra class
> machines just yet).
> 

Well, I mostly agree with you. My aim was not to prose L was beter than N
but
just to see if I can compare my 68040 Mac with at least a 386 PC...

In fact, I do not want to deal with *SYSTEM* results, such as I/O tests, but
only
with raw CPU speed: I don't beleive that bytemark raw CPU results are
affected the by
the system on which they run (are they ?), and that's why I was really
disapointed to see that my 30 MHz 68040 is just slitly faster than a poor 33
MHz 386.

But maybe I am wrong on this point to ! ( I hope so !) :-)