Quoting Kristian Farren on Sun, Apr 25, 1999 at 12:57:38AM -0700:
>
> Anybody else see this article,
> http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/dailynews/042199.htm
> This seems to refute the bencmarking done by ZDNEt
> a few month ago. Who's right? or does it just show that,
> benchmarks like statistics, can be twisted to your advantage.
> --
> To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
Mindcraft's study was rather pathetic and refuted by zdnet and a few others
immediately. ZDnet has stated that NT could not keep up with any of the
LInux distributions initially. Mindcraft then took a NT box, tuned all 4
nic cards to a level that most folks would whimper at, made key changes to
the registry, changed memory addresses, and then flatly stated that Redhat
Linux was not tuned whatsoever. Its a logical fallacy. The test was
conducted based on a logial fallacy. How can one compare a system altered
from the NIC up to a system that was not altered and expect to have
scientific and reproducible results. Science does not work that way.
And neither does comparison benchmarking.
--
Michael Perry
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
