From: "Geo." 

"Joe Barr"  wrote in message
news:pan.2003.05.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...

> 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.
>
> Do you know of any?

Have not seen any comparisons like that, I'm more concerned with web
serving than file serving (disk is the bottleneck there as well).

For a file server, microsoft has missed a huge opportunity. NT machines can
transfer an NTFS compressed file between them without ever uncompressing
it. They should use that and offload the compression/decompression load to
the client with all file transfer traffic happening in compressed mode and
they could easily double their file serving capabilities on a 10baseT
network (where the network is the bottleneck). In that light they could
make linux seem lacking and it could be done in a "fair
comparison" with no tweaks done to the OS's or special hardware or
anything that would be a valid complaint.

Geo.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4