the "study" gives no details on the systems used, where they were, who provided net connectivity...far from scientific. the sort of thing one would expect from marketeers. and just because overall system performance affects web downloads, does that mean web downloads can be used to accurately and meaningfully measure overall system performance? i think your logic is flawed. the net is not a big BBS, in case you haven't heard. On Fri, 27 Jun 1997, Jack Rickard wrote:
I'm not a marketing droid. But only a moron would think that overall performance would NOT affect the download of a web page, which is essentially what you are attempting to say.
There are certainly other ways to do it. Approximately Internet User Population raised to Internet User Population worth.
Jack RIckard
=================================================================== Jack Rickard Boardwatch Magazine Editor/Publisher 8500 West Bowles Ave., Ste. 210 jack.rickard@boardwatch.com Littleton, CO 80123 www.boardwatch.com Voice: (303)973-6038 ===================================================================
----------
From: Ben Black <black@zen.cypher.net> To: Craig A. Huegen <c-huegen@quadrunner.com> Cc: Jack Rickard <jack.rickard@boardwatch.com>; Peter Cole <Peter.Cole@telescan.com>; nanog@merit.edu; marketing@keynote.com Subject: Re: Keynote/Boardwatch Internet Backbone Index A better test!!! Date: Friday, June 27, 1997 2:28 PM
for an exmple of somewhat more complete and better designed benchmarks of
this type:
http://www.inversenet.com/about/backgrounder.html#2
note that they understand the numerous factors that contribute to overall
performance. only a marketing droid could think downloading 50k worth of
web pages is somehow an indicator of overall performance.
b3n