From: "Rich"
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_0E54_01C31663.696584A0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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_0E54_01C31663.696584A0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Do you
consider any =
benchmark that=20
demonstrates something you dislike as having the potential to be =
credible. =20
If so, can you give several examples of credible benchmarks that compare =
Microsoft products favorably to competing products particularly =
anything=20
related to linux?
As for
the rest of your =
drivel, what's=20
the matter? Are you so ahamed of yourself that you need to try to
= change=20
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 =
Shupak?Damn,=20
a trillion dollar fine here and a trillion dollar fine there =
andit's bound=20
to get even Bill Gates' attention, eh?Let me rephrase my=20
request. Are there any benchmarks from =
crediblesources? =20
Microsoft most definitely does not fit into that category. =
Lyingassholes=20
like you, Richard Shupak, are a large part of the reason=20
forthat.By the way, MS scum were all over
the Texas Senate =
chambers yesterday.They are terrified, they are pissing their =
pants, they=20
are trembling infear, over the fact that a bill having to do with =
state=20
software purchasesmight contain the phrase "open =
source."The whole=20
a list of MS shills showed up: CompTIA, ACT, ISC, and the BSA.You =
would=20
fit right with them. Each lied through their teetch,=20
claimingneutrality in the battle between MS and open source. =
In=20
fact, they allthought open source was fine. Just didn't want =
to see=20
it get mentioned byname is all as that might upset the workings of =
the=20
"free market." Theysaid it as if they were
sure nobody in =
the Senate=20
understood that amonopoly is the antithesis of a free =
market. They=20
reminded me an awfullot of you, Shupak. Spineless little =
lying=20
worms.All this over a bill with only five lines of text which =
none of=20
themreally objected to except for one thing: it contained the =
magic=20
phrase"open source."Their message
was clear: they are =
perfectly=20
happy with the (monopoly)status quo. Open source is OK, as =
long as=20
it knows its place and doesn'ttry to ride in the front of the=20
bus.They are terrified of competition and are willing
to spend =
any=20
amount ofmoney, expend any effort, to avoid it. But hey, =
cowardice=20
has always beenyour hallmark trait, hasn't it=20
Shupak? On
Fri, 09 May 2003 18:11:35 =
-0700, =20
wrote:>
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=20
results.>
> You're obviously not much
=
into=20
doing even the most trivial
of> research for =
your=20
"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 have=20
some demonstratably
non-rigged> benchmarks =
which you=20
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 of=20
performance increase, that> proves
the tests were=20
rigged.> > Do you
know of any?<!DOCTYPE =
HTML=20
PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0> =
Transitional//EN">>=20
<HTML><HEAD>> <META
http-equiv=3DContent-Type=20
content=3D"text/html;
charset=3Diso-8859-1">> <META =
content=3D"MSHTML=20
6.00.3790.0" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>>=20
</HEAD>> <BODY
bgColor=3D#ffffff>> =
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial 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 =
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=20
benchmarks which you believe refute =
these.</FONT></DIV>>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial =
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial> =
size=3D2>Rich</FONT></DIV>=20
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>=20
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT=20
face=3DArial>
size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>=20
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px;>
PADDING-LEFT: 5px; =
MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; 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_0E54_01C31663.696584A0--
--- 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
|