> BTW, recently I reported "Time millisecondsToRun: [10 benchmark]"'s
> result of my machine is "300" (Jitter), but often it is "283". <g>

Can I take this opportunity to reiterate a comment that I made about a
year ago?

The two "standard" Squeak benchmarks are ancient, dating back to medieval
times when knights were bold and VMs were slow and hardware crawled along
at a few tens of MHz.  These days the "traditional" parameters to these
benchmarks are utterly useless, since the results get swamped (as in the
above example) by quantisation errors and boundary effects introduced by
a number of factors.

A good rule of thumb might be: if the benchmark takes less than 10
seconds to run, increase the parameters (and adjust the scaling as
appropriate).  For example, "32 benchFibs" would be much better on most
platforms compared to "26 benchFibs".  "benchmark" needs a little more
care, since the initial 5000000 (or whatever) must be scaled by the same
number as the iteration count.  E.g:

	5000000 / (Time msToRun: [10 benchmark])
becomes:
	25000000 / (Time msToRun: [50 benchmark])

and so on.

I figure that if we're all spending time collecting benchmark results,
they might as well be accurate...

Ian