[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:       James Mohr <suse_mailing_list () jimmo ! com>
Date:       2003-05-19 17:30:18
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sunday 18 May 2003 21:28, Stephen wrote:
> James Mohr wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > jimmo
>
> It just goes to prove that perception is everything, even when
> there is no substance.  Statistics can be manipulated, test
> systems can be engineered to produce the desired result.  If
> mom-n-pop are taken in by this, reading a couple of pages of a
> dubious report, without further investigation, then they are safe
> in their own ignorance, that they have a fast system that suits
> their need.

That's what's marketing is all about anyway. If Britney likes Pepsi, then it 
must be the best soft drink, right? If a company that calls itself "VeriTest" 
says that they tested the two systems and NT was better, it has to be right. 

> I wouldn't have thought that Windows server 2003 was really aimed
> at this market anyway.  So there is hope that the more
> technically inclined people who are looking at this report would
> at least be able to sift out the dross and look at the facts
> instead of just the hype.

I guess it depends on your definition of "mon-n-pop", but I generalize as use  
that term for small companies that really don't have their own IT department. 
Unfortunately the management  making the decisions are often the ones reading 
the same first few pages. They are also the ones making the decisions about 
"re-training". Comments I have received about the "re-training" only taking a 
few hours are unrealistic. First companies need a real, tangible reason to 
switch and spend all that money on re-training. Even if are talking about 
"only" 20 people. "Proof" that Veritest cheated is not tangible.  On the 
other hand, current MS license policies **is** something tangible that would 
encourage then to switch.

> I would be interested to find out why the hacks that were used
> are not part of the default installation, perhaps they are a bit
> risky for a production setup, or more likely to hurt performance
> in a real world environment!

I would imagine that it has to do with some concept of what the "average" 
installation is. The configuration they used is probably not as efficient in 
every case. The defaults are sufficient for most functions, but you need to 
tune it for your specific applications. For example, an online transaction 
processing system has different requirements than a filesystem with large 
text documents.

Regards,

jimmo
-- 
---------------------------------------
"Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your
character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others
think you are." -- John Wooden
---------------------------------------
Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial:  http://www.linux-tutorial.info
---------------------------------------
NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing 
lists or forums are subject to reposting.

-- 
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]