[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       suse-linux-e
Subject:    Re: [SLE] Another shabby Microsoft deception.(OT)
From:       Oskar Teran <pheonix1t () houston ! rr ! com>
Date:       2003-05-18 18:37:18
[Download RAW message or body]

James Mohr wrote:
> On Sunday 18 May 2003 16:10, Stephen Allewell wrote:
> 
>>If you read the report, the Windows server wasn't an out of the
>>box install.  It had been tweaked using various registry hacks,
>>much out of the league of mom-n-pop shops.  They also used a 64K
>>file system block size, whereas, IIRC, the default for NTFS is
>>4K, just as with the ext3.
>>
>>The whole point is that what was tested wasn't representative of
>>what would be the default for a Windows server installation.  So
>>the comparison isn't valid.
>>
>>
>>Steve
> 
> 
> A mom-n-pop shop doesn't care about kernel/registry tweaks. All they care 
> about is ease of use and the "marketing" aspect of Windows being faster 
> (valid or not).  Microsoft plays down the fact that there are tweaks 
> involved, just that it is "faster".  If you only look at the first few pages 
> of the report (which most people do anyway) you don't see anything about 
> this. So for mom-n-pop, Windows is faster. It's not until you read the 
> details (which mom-n-pop don't care about) that you find out the details. 
> Sorry, I seriously doubt that mom-m-pop know what a block size even is, let 
> alone what effect it has on the performance. The only effect it does have is 
> to make them think Windows is faster. Windows "performance" is all in the 
> marketing and thus better suited for the mom-n-pop shops.
> 
> Really quite logical when you look at it.

well....this all depends on how you look at it.  Microsoft used a 
similar approach against Novell a few years back making winNT look 
faster on a network compared to a novell server.  They purposely made 
windows listen for requests for novell servers, when they picked that 
up, they would put the the novell requests into a loop - not a continous 
loop, but a long enough time that the typical end-user would sense the 
delay.  To the un-informed person.....windows seemed faster!
This was documented in the anti-trust trial.  Novell made MS aware of 
this immediately...now long did MS take to fix this?  Approx. 2 years!! 
  (not a coincidence!)  By then, the damage was done.....people are so 
gullible!

This is the kind of bullshit I hate about microsoft...these tactics they 
use!  We must do a better job of educating people and making them aware 
of the truth!
To me, the performance comparison is a fraud.  It manipulates things to 
look a certain way, the way MS wants it to appear.  But it's not the 
truth!
I also don't like the fact the current american gov't (Bush admin) has 
turned a blind eye to MS's bullshit......I guess it's easy to do that 
when MS "contributes" [bribes, in my opinion] millions of dollars to the 
republicans!  Last stat. I saw was around $4 million ..... so that's 
what it costs to "pay off" the anti-trust case...hmmmm.







> 
> Regards,
> 
> jimmo



-- 
Check the headers for your unsubscription address
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]