From: "Rich" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0E04_01C31656.6D89C5D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

   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.

   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/).

   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.

Rich


  "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:

  One other thing.  How about comparative benchmarks between W2K and =
W2K+3?=20
  If they don't show the same kind of performance increase, that proves =
the
  tests were rigged.

  Do you know of any?

------=_NextPart_000_0E04_01C31656.6D89C5D0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








   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 84% = faster than=20
Windows 2000 Server in the benchmark results.
 
   You're
obviously not much =
into doing=20
even the most trivial of research for your "articles". 
The = benchmark is=20
available from the same VeriTest page as linux comparison (http://www.ve" target="new">http://www.ve=">http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/">http://www.ve=
ritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/).
 
   As for
your rigged =
comment, are you so=20
desparate that this is the best you can do?  Do you have some=20
demonstratably non-rigged benchmarks which you believe refute=20
these.
 
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=
5.10.00.43.54.97025{at}austin.rr.com...On=20
  Fri, 09 May 2003 20:20:17 -0400, Geo. wrote:One other =
thing.  How=20
  about comparative benchmarks between W2K and W2K+3? If they don't =
show the=20
  same kind of performance increase, that proves thetests were=20
  rigged.Do you know of
any?

------=_NextPart_000_0E04_01C31656.6D89C5D0--

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