Slashdot Mirror

http://www.gartner.com/
http://www.metagroup.com/
http://www.idc.com/
http://www.forrester.com/
http://www.idg.com/
http://www.jupiterresearch.com/
http://www.yankeegroup.com/
http://www.aberdeen.com/
http://www.amrresearch.com/

And yes, they all cost money. If you're an enterprise and you want input on how to spend you tens-of-thousands to multi-million-dollar IT budget, you can shell out a few more dollars to get some research.

You make me ill. Microsoft posts numbers from independent research companies, and they tell you the name or names of the companies that do the research.

As a dated example, since it was the first one I Googled:

Microsoft Corp. today announced that Microsoft(R) SQL Server(TM) offers a solution whose total cost of ownership (TCO) is 3.7 times lower than that of Oracle, according to independent research done by the Boston-based Aberdeen Group Inc. (http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1999/Mar 99/TCOpr.asp).

So, please, go here:
http://www.aberdeen.com/

And reply to me with examples of a pro-Microsoft bias.

1) Linus Torvalds is one hunky piece of gourmet man-candy.
2) Richard M Stallman cannot say "GNU/Linux World" three times fast.
3) This year will feature the first shooting spree in Linux World history.
4) As a result, next year's Linux World will be devoted to the memory of Bill Claybrook of the Aberdeen Group, gunned down while interposing his body between the shooter and the visiting school children from Greater Houlton Christian Academy.
5) This will cause all Linux users to be branded as terrorists, even though the shooter is a disgruntled BSD user, because the authorities don't even know the difference.
6) When MS memos surface planning a publicity stunt / shooting spree at one of their own trade shows, no one will even care.
7) MS has secretly rented a theatre to showcase their line of Linux apps, including a Windows/GUI that runs on top of the Linux kernel.
8) No such products exist. Those entering the theatre will be brainwashed.
9) The Society of Women Engineers is sponsoring a special recruitment event for high school aged future women engineers in my hotel room; any woman aged 15-19 with an interest in pursuing a four year degree in engineering or the applied sciences is welcome to attend. Dress should be informal and not too complicated as I intend to be blasted.
10) Despite the best efforts of the conference organizers, funding was unavailable to spike the drinking water in the hotel with acid. Your generous donations could help make next year's Linux World that much more surreal.
11) Spinal Tap will play a free concert in front of the Expo on the last day. Yes, the volume will be turned all the way up to 11.

Aberdeen Research Group has this to say about open source and Linux security:

Open Source and Linux: 2002 Poster Children for Security Problems

November 12, 2002
Open source software is now the major source of elevated security vulnerabilities for IT buyers. Security advisories from Cert for the first 10 months of 2002 show that open source and Linux software accounted for more than half of all advisories. The poster child for security glitches is no longer Microsoft; this label now belongs to open source and Linux software suppliers.

Read more here

So, I guess it will be business as usual on Slashdot, commenting without actually reading the article.

However, from the summary, it does sound like they are taking the wrong tack. They claim that the AMD methodology is wrong, because they are using the wrong aspects of the processor to measure. However, the argument they completely ignore is that MHz is a stupid way to measure anything in the first place... Whatever. It certainly sounds purchased.

From all the articles I've seen on Tom's and elsewhere clearly state that the rating is a somewhat conservative way of comparing Intel and AMD.

Now, from my standpoint, I don't really care about Mhz (although whenever I upgrade, I want to double my Mhz!), I do care about relative performance and cost. It'd be nice if Intel and AMD (and others!) could agree on some benchmarking methodology, but baring that, AMD comparing their number with Intel Mhz does exactly what it needs to, helps people understand how AMD processors compare with Intel processors using Intel's own method, clock speed.

So, I guess it will be business as usual on Slashdot, commenting without actually reading the article.

However, from the summary, it does sound like they are taking the wrong tack. They claim that the AMD methodology is wrong, because they are using the wrong aspects of the processor to measure. However, the argument they completely ignore is that MHz is a stupid way to measure anything in the first place... Whatever. It certainly sounds purchased.

From all the articles I've seen on Tom's and elsewhere clearly state that the rating is a somewhat conservative way of comparing Intel and AMD.

Now, from my standpoint, I don't really care about Mhz (although whenever I upgrade, I want to double my Mhz!), I do care about relative performance and cost. It'd be nice if Intel and AMD (and others!) could agree on some benchmarking methodology, but baring that, AMD comparing their number with Intel Mhz does exactly what it needs to, helps people understand how AMD processors compare with Intel processors using Intel's own method, clock speed.

From what i've read, it requires registration to view it.