From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_02BC_01C31CD5.042E70B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   We all know you like to let your hatred and prejudices get the better =
of you but you should at least keep your stories straight.  The = benchmark
below is Windows Server 2003 vs. Windows 2000 Server.  No = redhat linux
for you to fret about.

   As for benchmarks in general, you have already made it clear that you =
are unable to identify any benchmark which you deem credible which =
compares a Microsoft product favorably to linux or anything else for = that
matter.  Your blind prejudice is clear.

Rich

  "Joe Barr"  wrote in message =
news:pan.2003.05.18.03.59.46.41958{at}austin.rr.com...
  On Sat, 17 May 2003 13:55:16 -0700,  wrote:

  > For those that value standard benchmarks, Windows Server 2003 is =
from
  >    64% to 355% faster than Windows 2000 Server on WebBench.  See
  >    =
http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_performance.pdf.

  Thoat is not a "standard" benchmark.  That was funded by Microsoft, =
the
  most dishonest and the least trustworthy firm on the face of the =
planet.
  No doubt they provided the results they wanted to see as well as other
  specifications.

  On an imbecile would believe an MS benchmark.=20


  --=20

------=_NextPart_000_02BC_01C31CD5.042E70B0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   We all
know you like to =
let your=20
hatred and prejudices get the better of you but you should at least keep = your=20
stories straight.  The benchmark below is Windows Server 2003 vs.
= Windows=20
2000 Server.  No redhat linux for you to fret
about.
 
   As for
benchmarks in =
general, you have=20
already made it clear that you are unable to identify any benchmark = which you=20
deem credible which compares a Microsoft product favorably to linux or = anything=20
else for that matter.  Your blind prejudice is
clear.
 
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=
5.18.03.59.46.41958{at}austin.rr.com...On=20
  Sat, 17 May 2003 13:55:16 -0700, 
wrote:> For those =
that value=20
  standard benchmarks, Windows Server 2003 is =
from>    64%=20
  to 355% faster than Windows 2000 Server on WebBench. =20
  See>    http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_performance.=
pdf">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/ms_performance.pdf=
.Thoat=20
  is not a "standard" benchmark.  That was funded by Microsoft, =
themost=20
  dishonest and the least trustworthy firm on the face of the =
planet.No=20
  doubt they provided the results they wanted to see as well as=20
  otherspecifications.On an imbecile would
believe an MS =
benchmark.=20
  --


------=_NextPart_000_02BC_01C31CD5.042E70B0--

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