From: "Randy H"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0232_01C316E6.D4EC7020
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pot, meet kettle.
"Rich" wrote in message news:3ebc670f{at}w3.nls.net...
Do you consider any benchmark that demonstrates something you =
dislike as having the potential to be credible. If so, can you give =
several examples of credible benchmarks that compare Microsoft products =
favorably to competing products particularly anything related to linux?
As for the rest of your drivel, what's the matter? Are you so =
ahamed of yourself that you need to try to change the topic and post = more
lies and childish insults?
Rich
"Joe Barr" wrote in message =
news:pan.2003.05.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...
Are you taking a break from your Passport security duties, Mister =
Shupak?
Damn, a trillion dollar fine here and a trillion dollar fine there =
and
it's bound to get even Bill Gates' attention, eh?
Let me rephrase my request. Are there any benchmarks from credible
sources? Microsoft most definitely does not fit into that category. =
Lying
assholes like you, Richard Shupak, are a large part of the reason =
for
that.
By the way, MS scum were all over the Texas Senate chambers =
yesterday.
They are terrified, they are pissing their pants, they are trembling =
in
fear, over the fact that a bill having to do with state software =
purchases
might contain the phrase "open source."
The whole a list of MS shills showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and the =
BSA.
You would fit right with them. Each lied through their teetch, =
claiming
neutrality in the battle between MS and open source. In fact, they =
all
thought open source was fine. Just didn't want to see it get =
mentioned by
name is all as that might upset the workings of the "free market." =
They
said it as if they were sure nobody in the Senate understood that a
monopoly is the antithesis of a free market. They reminded me an =
awful
lot of you, Shupak. Spineless little lying worms.
All this over a bill with only five lines of text which none of them
really objected to except for one thing: it contained the magic =
phrase
"open source."
Their message was clear: they are perfectly happy with the =
(monopoly)
status quo. Open source is OK, as long as it knows its place and =
doesn't
try to ride in the front of the bus.
They are terrified of competition and are willing to spend any =
amount of
money, expend any effort, to avoid it. But hey, cowardice has =
always been
your hallmark trait, hasn't it Shupak?
=20
On Fri, 09 May 2003 18:11:35 -0700, wrote:
> See
> =
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.m=
spx.
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as =
84%
> faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark results.
>=20
> You're obviously not much into doing even the most trivial of
> research for your "articles". The benchmark is
available from =
the
> same VeriTest page as linux comparison
> (http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
>=20
> As for your rigged comment, are you so desparate that this is =
the
> best you can do? Do you have some demonstratably non-rigged
> benchmarks which you believe refute these.
>=20
> Rich
>=20
>=20
> "Joe Barr" wrote in message
> news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com... On Fri, 09 =
May
> 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. wrote:
>=20
> One other thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K =
and
> W2K+3? If they don't show the same kind of performance increase, =
that
> proves the tests were rigged.
>=20
> Do you know of any? Transitional//EN">
>
>
> =
>
>
> See =
href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.
> For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as 84%
> faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark =
results.
> size=3D2> You're obviously not much into doing even =
the most
> trivial of research for your "articles". The
benchmark is
> available from the same VeriTest page as linux comparison ( =
href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
> size=3D2> As for your rigged comment, are you so =
desparate
> that this is the best you can do? Do you have some =
demonstratably
> non-rigged benchmarks which you believe refute
these.
> size=3D2>Rich size=3D2>
size=3D2> PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px =
solid;
> MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
> "Joe Barr" < =
href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
> wrote in message =
href=3D"news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On
> Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. wrote:One other
> thing. How about comparative benchmarks between W2K and =
W2K+3?
> If they don't show the same kind of performance increase, =
that
> proves thetests were rigged.Do you know of
> any?
--=20
------=_NextPart_000_0232_01C316E6.D4EC7020
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Pot, meet kettle.
"Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3ebc670f{at}w3.nls.net...
Do you
consider any =
benchmark that=20
demonstrates something you dislike as having the potential to be=20
credible. If so, can you give several examples of credible =
benchmarks=20
that compare Microsoft products favorably to competing products=20
particularly anything related to linux?
As for
the rest of your =
drivel,=20
what's the matter? Are you so ahamed of yourself that you need =
to try to=20
change the topic and post more lies and childish insults?
Rich
"Joe Barr" <warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
= wrote in=20
message news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.01.40.38.63195{at}austin.rr.com...Are=20
you taking a break from your Passport security duties, Mister=20
Shupak?Damn, a trillion dollar fine here and a trillion dollar =
fine=20
there andit's bound to get even Bill Gates' attention, =
eh?Let me=20
rephrase my request. Are there any benchmarks from=20
crediblesources? Microsoft most definitely does not fit =
into that=20
category. Lyingassholes like you, Richard Shupak, are a large =
part of=20
the reason forthat.By the way, MS scum
were all over the =
Texas=20
Senate chambers yesterday.They are terrified, they are pissing =
their=20
pants, they are trembling infear, over the fact that a bill =
having to do=20
with state software purchasesmight contain the phrase "open=20
source."The whole a list of MS shills showed
up: CompTIA, =
ACT, ISC,=20
and the BSA.You would fit right with them. Each lied =
through their=20
teetch, claimingneutrality in the battle between MS and open=20
source. In fact, they allthought open source was =
fine. Just=20
didn't want to see it get mentioned byname is all as that might =
upset=20
the workings of the "free market."
Theysaid it as if they =
were=20
sure nobody in the Senate understood that amonopoly is the =
antithesis of=20
a free market. They reminded me an awfullot of you, =
Shupak. =20
Spineless little lying worms.All this over a bill with only =
five=20
lines of text which none of themreally objected to except for =
one thing:=20
it contained the magic phrase"open
source."Their message =
was=20
clear: they are perfectly happy with the (monopoly)status =
quo. =20
Open source is OK, as long as it knows its place and doesn'ttry =
to ride=20
in the front of the bus.They are terrified of competition =
and are=20
willing to spend any amount ofmoney, expend any effort, to avoid =
it. But hey, cowardice has always beenyour hallmark trait, =
hasn't=20
it
Shupak? On Fri,
09 May 2003 18:11:35=20
-0700,
wrote:> =20
See> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx.> =20
For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as=20
84%> faster than Windows
2000 Server in the =
benchmark results.>
> You're =
obviously not=20
much into doing even the most trivial
of> =
research=20
for your "articles". The benchmark is available from=20
the> same VeriTest page
as linux=20
comparison> (http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).>=20
> As for your rigged
comment, are you so =
desparate=20
that this is the> best
you can do? Do =
you=20
have some demonstratably
non-rigged> =
benchmarks=20
which you believe refute these.> >
Rich> =
>=20
> "Joe Barr" <warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>
= wrote in=20
message> news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...=20
On Fri, 09 May> 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. =
wrote:>=20
> One other thing. How
about comparative =
benchmarks=20
between W2K and> W2K+3? If they
don't show the =
same kind=20
of performance increase, that>
proves the tests =
were=20
rigged.> > Do you
know of any?<!DOCTYPE =
HTML=20
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0> =20
Transitional//EN">>
<HTML><HEAD>> =
<META=20
http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">>=20
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>=20
<STYLE></STYLE>>
</HEAD>> <BODY=20
bgColor=3D#ffffff>>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2> See
<A> href=3D"http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/performance=
/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/perfor=
mance/etest.mspx. '>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver200=
3/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx">http://www.microsoft.com/windowss=
erver2003/evaluation/performance/etest.mspx</A>. &=
gt;=20
For file server performance, Windows Server 2003 is as much as =
84%>=20
faster than Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark=20
results.</FONT></DIV>>
<DIV><FONT =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial>
size=3D2> You're =
obviously not much=20
into doing even the most> trivial of research for your=20
"articles". The benchmark is>
available from the =
same=20
VeriTest page as linux comparison (<A>
href=3D"http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).http://www.verit=
est.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.veritest.com/clients/re=
ports/microsoft/</A>).</FONT></DIV>>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial> =
size=3D2> As for=20
your rigged comment, are you so desparate> that this is the =
best you=20
can do? Do you have some demonstratably>
non-rigged =
benchmarks which you believe refute =
these.</FONT></DIV>>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>=20
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial>
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV> =
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;> PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: =
5px;=20
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid;> MARGIN-RIGHT:=20
0px">>
<DIV>"Joe Barr"=20
<<A> href=3D"warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=">mailto:warthawg{at}austin.rr.com">warthawg{at}austin.rr.com>'=
>
t;> =20
wrote in message <A>
href=3D"news:pan.2003.0=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On'>news:pan.2003.05.10.00.=
43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com">news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.r=
r.com</A>...</DIV>On> =20
Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo.
wrote:<BR><BR>One=20
other> thing. How
about comparative =
benchmarks=20
between W2K and W2K+3?>
<BR>If they don't =
show the=20
same kind of performance increase,
that> proves=20
the<BR>tests were
rigged.<BR><BR>Do you know=20
of> =20
=
any?<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>--=20
------=_NextPart_000_0232_01C316E6.D4EC7020--
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4
* Origin: Barktopia BBS Site http://HarborWebs.com:8081 (1:379/1.45)
SEEN-BY: 633/267 270
@PATH: 379/1 106/1 2000 633/267
|