Slashdot Mirror
MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks
Player To Be Traded Later writes: "Robert Cringely at Infoworld reports here on Microsoft's attempts to squash SQL Server 7 benchmarks." In short, when a testing lab came up with far better results for SQL Server 7 under Windows NT than with its much-touted successor Windows 2000, Microsoft decided they'd rather keep the touting nice and quiet.
That is maybe the best response I have ever heard.
I give you mad props.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Mod this beeyatch up!
---
This
Desite the "You're trolling" BS you're going to get let me add this
You're absolutely right!
---
This
Yeah, but it's a different story when it's an open-source loving, fuzzy little company like Oracle or IBM that does it. Those guys wouldn't hurt a fly, and have never done anything ruthless in their entire histories.
When Microsoft does it, however, you have to understand that they do it out of sheer malice. You know all those stories about Bill Gates being a programmer were lies, anyway. He's just another suit like Ellison.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
[Win]2000 is pretty new and they are still tuning it up, so give them sometime and they would have it running better than NT.
From what I understood from the demonstration of WinXP we were given, Win2000 was only designed as a kind of 'proof of concept' on the way to WinXP. (Which looks even more bloated by the way.) So I think you can forget about them tuning Win2000.
I think the comparison between one database and another with raw numbers is rather unscientific. It's a case of apples and oranges -- you *could* compare dBASE to another RDBMS and find that dBASE blows everything out of the water, but can it do sophisticated locking and bookmarking? What about triggers and stored procedures? Does it have *any* XML support? The list goes on...
--
Microsoft has made a lot of noise about how Windows 2000 is faster than Windows NT 4.0 in their efforts to sell it to businesses that don't really want to upgrade. Denying that this exists without generating some proof that it doesn't won't help them.
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
First off, what he said must have been intimidating enough for you to be an Anonymous Coward.
Second off. Yes any company would act in this fashion, especially if the benchmarker didn't have explicit permission.
Third. I find it ironic that SQL2000 came out the time Windows 2000 emerged. Is it because maybe it is optimized for W2K and SQL is optimized for NT4.0. After all, Microsoft knows with a new server based OS they are going to have to add the Server software to match.
Microsoft chronies aren't as dumb as you would like to think.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Hi, my name's Robert X. Cringely, and this is a completely impartial article.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
My desk dictionary (Webster's New World, 3rd College Ed.) gives the following definition for "squelch": "The act of suppressing or silencing, especially a crushing retort..." "Quash" is given a stronger definition: "To annihilate, destroy...".
I was thinking the jargon "squelch" (as used in audio technology circles), to eliminate signal output that's below a certain threshhold. Strangely, my dictionary doesn't give that definition.
Anyway, the point is obvious: Slashdot would be well served by having at least one professional editor looking at the text before it goes out.
--Tom
Tom Geller
Larry Ellisson must be doing multiple backflips in his MIG, laughing is ass off!
If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too).
Wow what a horrible bit of "evidence" to drudge up, since the same thing happened in reverse when some Linux benchmarks showed it performing worse than NT. The Linux crowd went berserk...
One thing I've learned over the years -- the only benchmarks that matter are ones you do yourself with real-world situations!
If you can't do them yourself, then you just have to take third party benchmarks with a mill of salt.
"And like that
I'm sure MSSQL would go pretty fast on DOS 6.2
Je t'aime Stéphanie
They're not meaningless. Yes, they are open to manipulation and misinterpretation, and no "digest" can ever tell a whole story, but testing anything will always be just a sample.
What you said about DB benchmarking you could have said about any software. And by the same reasoning, you could never say any piece of software sucked because how could you know that further use or testing wouldn't reveal a configuration that would work better? But, of course, some software does suck, and you find out by trying it.
Perhaps you are noting that the biggest vendors and most expensive packages are all "pretty good" and that the differences between them are subtle. Well, benchmarks could be used to demonstrate that. Let a thousand benchmarks blossom. Experienced DB programmers and SAs are familiar with "standard-seeming" tasks that they've had trouble with in the past, or big tasks that are so common they simply need to work well. These things can be benchmarked, and some information is just better than no information at all. If the vendor feels the test is not accurate, let them give instructions on how to improve and publish better results.
Remember that Win2k is a relatively new beast and its initial adoption was pretty slow. Lots of hardware vendors are still hammering on their w2k drivers. It's very likely that once improved drivers start appearing the situiation will be reversed. NT4 drivers had five(!) years to mature.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
That's very interesting, and appears to be correct (see http://www.cybercrime.gov/ipmanual/03ipma.htm, "Statutory exceptions" section). I was under the impression that the entire EULA mess started because a clueless and/or bought judge ruled that loading a program into RAM constituted making a copy. Under that (il)logic, the EULA grants you the right to run the software which you would not otherwise have, and in exchange strips you of fair use rights. But based on 17 USC, you already have the right to run the software, so the EULA removes your fair use rights in exchange for nothing. IANAL, but I thought that a contract without "consideration" was invalid. So even if a EULA is a contract (highly questionable, given there's no communication between you and the manufacturer and no way to prove you actually read and agreed to the terms), it shouldn't be enforceable. Can anybody clear this up?
I'd like to see the EFF take up the EULA issue, of course only after they've finished sending the DMCA back to the bowels of hell from whence it came.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
I find it interesting that MS would continue to squash things. They already squash all their competition, now they are squashing their own stuff!
That does make sense.
The whole notion of EULA and shrinkwrap licenses doesn't appear to have been fully tested in a court of law.
I do think it's about time for this to happen.
Then again with UCITA will it really matter?
I could care about the results of the this test, their test, any test involving microsoft products. I don't use them. That isn't the point. The point to this story is that they tried to cover up the results of a test which showed a problem with one of their products. You can either take the side that all is fair in business, or take the side that they were stupid, and we got to find out. Whine all you want about microsoft bashing. They deserve it.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
Isn't it also normal for Microsoft to bash someone who produces a better product?
:)
Hmm I'd sure like to see some anti-Microsoft FUD from Microsoft
Or at least some Windows NT bashing from the Windows 2K sales department....
Ahhh if Microsoft were like IBM... Then Microsofts departments would be launching FUD against other departments.... [IBM departments are all companys within themselfs... they don't work together...]
I don't actually exist.
actually, dumbass, java was originally written with this exact purpose in mind. write once run anywhere means anywhere not any OS. they have run somewhat astray of their goal, but java first came out, it was touted as being a unifying language for devices and computers. cellular phones, organizers, telephones, televisions, portable audio devices, and even your refrigerator, plus a whole bunch of other junk.
l /sun.html
Oh yeah, and enjoy these links:
http://java.sun.com/j2me/
http://www.palmos.com/alliance/guide/levels/globa
http://www.embedded.oti.com/
What most recent round?
As far as I have seen the only web server which has shown higher numbers than IIS has been tux. Not apache.
Apache just has too much overhead to compete in that realm.
Sir, you are obviously irrational. Have at you!
Carousel is a lie!
While I agree entirely with your post, I feel obligated to point out that your "one sentence" is actually 3...
:-P
Regards,
ehintz
By the nature of the dispute, we only know about it because they lost. That gives us precisely no information on how many times they might have succeeded at squashing results like this. Jherico
Jherico
What can the average user can do to ensure his security? "Nothing, you're screwed"
they restrict my speech on what I can say about that software
So how does this affect a Master's Thesis? Is Computer *Science* no longer science at all?
>no one would run without the service packs. I might as well run my car with a broken transmition.
:-)
Well, that's pretty much what running on any MS OS prior to the the 3rd service pack is, right?
The only difference is when you go back to the dealer, they tell you that it is perfect just how it is.
~Religion is O.K., as long as it gets you laid.
the big DB companies all ban publishing benchmark results through terms in their license agreements. This is incredibly irritating because it undermines the free market principle of "perfect information" (markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn).
This would be bad if it were totally true. Oracle has benchmark clauses in its licence agreement. So does MS SQL Server. But DB2 UDB does not - take it, download it, play with it and publish the results. Not being able to publicize benchmark results is a really dumb way to try and tilt the market.
Note: I'm a developer for DB2 UDB so I'm hardly unbiased.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
I love to see a Microsoft article go up, then observe the huge disparity in responses. Overwhelmingly, you see the two categories into which everything in the universe can be divided: 1)High school aged rabid Lunix advocates who are drooling all over themselves to get in a slashbot comment for the purposes of karma whoring, and 2)People who have jobs, earn money, and invariably have/want to work with Microsoft products. Granted, not all people who are outraged at this are making the same frothing response, but those of the former who do so are rewarded for their "cleverness" just as well as those from the latter who see that this is both typical behavior for any database vendor and wholly unsurprising to those who know squat about Windows. Of course those who are in their little "Yay Linux" world are predisposed to ignorance on the topic.
http://www.tpc.org
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
Benchmarks are useful because they really stress the products in customer-like situations. They help to eliminate many defects. Of course, they might not test a specific customer's requirement. Still they are one point of comparison.
TPC is in the pocket of big-money. Their rules expressly forbid the participation of Open Source OSes or RDBMSs.
Were it not for that, the number one TPC-C price/performance would be PostgreSQL 7.0 on Linux kernel 2.4 on a dual CPU box. I've seen PGsql on a beefy dual PIII with 4gb ram and a big disk array ($10,000) put out over 50,000 tpmc, but I can't legally admit to that. The smallest W2K/MSSQL 2000 reaching that costs clost to $600,000.
Number 2 would probably be Oracle on Linux as it is sufficently faster then Oracle on 2000 and lacks the big-iron tax which keeps it out of the price/performance game (but look at the TPMc top performance for non-clustered).
This is mearly one of many incidents where MS fucked up and got caught and subsequently laughed at by the industry. It happens daily. This is what the story is about. Whether or not NT4 is faster than NT5 or NT6 at mangling a database doesn't matter. They messed up again, it got exposed, we all go "HAHAHA" and move on.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
How dare you try and subject us to such Consumer Reports drivel!!!
You've hit the nail on the head. We should all politely ask our friendly neighborhood legislators to enact a law protecting the publication of "consumer reports drivel." Consumer Reports performs a very valuable service -- testing and reporting and products objectively (i.e., without any marketing hype or bias for their own pet products). Many people consult CR when buying a car, dishwasher, etc. So why not for software?
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
IE wasn't a better product before IE 4...
Netscape 3 sucking hard didn't help Netscape one bit...
Microsoft would probably have won the browser wars...
This way Netscape gets sympathy points it spends on staying alive.....
I don't actually exist.
yes, their second test was fair, and revealed problems. I never disputed that. but that first test was essentially rigged in favor of nt, and there's no denying it.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
I really find it hard NOT to have a problem with benchmarking NT as tweaked out as they had it (4 NICs and 4 processors, 1 NIC bound to each processor with separate stacks as i recall) with an out of the box Red Hat installation.
#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}
F(#define F(x) int main(){printf(#x,10,#x);}%cF(%s))
Yeah, that must be the article, seeing as how it's about NICs and network throughput, which are obviously code words for "SQL Server" and "Windows 2000".
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Hee hee. Netscape enjoyed for a while the benefits of monopoly (if that's the word people want to use). But like all monopolists, they got fat and lazy and some upstart came along and made a better product.
The same thing is happening now to Microsoft and its monopoly (if that's the word). They got fat and lazy. And along comes the upstarts with Linux, BSD, Konqueror, Mozilla, KOffice, OpenOffice, KDE, GNOME, Eazel, yada, yada, yada.
I have no problems with "natural" monopolies. They got there because of the market, and the market is all too willing to take them out if they get uppity. Soon you're going to see Microsoft dissatisfaction hit critical mass and hell's going to break loose...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I'm pretty sure that there are some more friendly companies.. *cough* open source *cough* that woundn't mind a good benchmarking. Just the ones with something to hide try to hide it.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Straight down!
Jeremiah
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
You have yet to present one reason why. If the OS is better at scheduling or whatever, it should be faster. You just spout of things without even any reasons.
You're right, you don't know you're place.
So? Don't use their software! Is it that difficult of a concept?
Your freedom is up to you, and you alone. But beware, freedom is not convenient and easy. It is difficult and irksome.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Is a license like this really enforcable? Or would a judge rule in the magazines favor eventually, but only after MS bankrupted them with legal fees? Too bad an individual doesn't publish a test like this on their own then get help from the EFF.
This test bed is flawed and results from this should not be published.
1) The web server will not always have the same load.
2) There may be performance differences in the web server that causes it to give uneven responses.
3) The CGI scripts may have different interactions with the back end servers, some more optimal than others.
4) Network interferences. What if one of those servers does a lot of broadcast traffic? That may affect other servers.
5) You'd need to reboot one of the web servers after each test for an accurate figure in case some processes went zombie or if there was a memory leak in the web server OS.
6) These benchmarks would be home made and unproven, which scares people.
7) You didn't ask for the vendor's permission to test or publish, which isn't nice. I'm not sure of the legality of that.
Saying it's "slower" isn't that accurate:
That aside, everything isn't perfect with the P4: It really needs a silicon shrink, and going with RAMBUS hurts it badly. It's by rambus, it's expensive and you could get as much performance by using DDR SDRAM and/or multiple memory interfaces. It's also rather expensive - I just bought myself an Athlon, and is happy with that.
Most windows lusers couldn't compile anyway
They can if the installation wizard handles compiling the software; such an installation package would be similar to a source RPM. And yes, there is a free full-featured GNU compiler for Windows. There are two in fact: MinGW GCC and the GCC from Red Hat Cygwin.
they had brains they wouldn't be using an OS designed for two year olds.
So we're supposed to run games for the Wintendo platform under Wine? Good luck.
I upgrade my software with apt
Pretty hard to do if the distro on your Debian CD doesn't support your network connection hardware and protocols (winmodem, AOL, Juno, NetZero, network card, cable modem, DSL modem, PPPoE, etc.).
I read my docs online
Pretty hard to do if you can't boot or if your video subsystem isn't working.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Under standard copyright law, something like benchmarks is considered fair use, and is thus not subject to asinine click through agreements. If something is not covered by copyright law, it cannot reasonably be covered by click through
Click-through is like any other contract. Once you agree to it, you are bound by it. The agreements already waive your first sale rights. If you waive fair use, you waive fair use; such are the terms of the agreement. If you don't like it, tough beans. Use free software instead.
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
markets with "asymetric information" are known to be ineffecient, something laissez-faire Randites never seem to learn
Eh? The correct term is "Randroids." Randroids, like communist pinheads, coffee-shop liberal-arts 'revolutionaries' and James Carville,
have it all figured out.
Then, there's the people who read Rand and think about it, and realize that when she wrote, don't accept things on faith; think about them yourself she was talking about objectivism as well.
There's a great bit in the Illuminatus! trilogy about a painting, showing God looking down and pointing his finger at the viewer, with the legend, "Think for yourself, Schmuck!"
And, if you stop to think for yourself, you'll realize that markets without information are not "free markets" but "captive consumers" and possibly "old-time snake oil fraud."
David Brin has a semi-good book called The Transparent Society, where he discusses why people tend to always think that reducing information flow will fix their problems, when, quite often, increasing information flow is actually what needs to be done. He also discusses the notion of "reciprocal transparency"; meaning, when you must disclose information about yourself to another party, demand a reciprocal disclosure. For instance, you can go to sites like 123nc.com and look up people's criminal records; I think that that could be fine, but whenever someone accesses my records (if I had a criminal record), that I should recieve free written notification on a standard form of who accessed what, when. Same thing for credit agencies -- when someone runs a credit report on me, I get notification of that fact, and maybe even a copy of their credit report to boot. At their expense, of course -- they initiated it!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Here's a nice example of the bloat for y'all. Try those benchmarks on a properly configured system.
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
It was pretty clear after I read the article, or a few of the comments.= \=\=\=\=\=\
=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\=\
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Doesn't matter what is new and what isn't. Doesn't matter what drivers are what. Doesn't matter how many years (whoopty 5!) someone had to make something work right. This story is about microsoft doing something stupid AGAIN and getting caught. That's the only conclusion you can jump too.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
What the hell kind of hooks into the underlying OS should an RDBMS really need to make? It's all well and good to say that SQL 7 was built for NT and not 2k, but what could SQL 7 really be doing that would cause the switch to win2k to halve it's performance?
btw, since we run SQL 7 on NT here (but slowly shifting a lot of stuff to MySQL on Linux), does anyone have benchmarks comparing SQL 2000 on win2k to SQL 7 on NT?
Oracle One Million AD
tell me i'm not the only one who read that as a year, and the whole thing as the name of some obscure left coast new age guru...
--saint----
W my dear boy BMW...
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
No, squelch is a sound that happens while playing squash.
/. high schooler.
God bless the expansive vocabulary of the
This is a manual virus. Copy it to your sig and help me spread!
Does the Ford accelerate at 9.8m/s^2?
:)
When dropped from an airplane, yes. After all, the Fuckers only run downhill, there's no bigger hill than straight down, and those Ford fans like for their cars to run fast!
- - - - -
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
You want it , you got it buddy !:=)
With the calibre of people you see working on the Eazel project - when they say GNOME is userfriendly, can you deny it? These guys have been doing graphics since Bill was in his diapers.
The GNOME foundation includes some of the top computing companies in the world. That simply verifies what I said earlier - you seem to want to be aggresive, yet I am not making aggressive gestures, just pointing out facts.If you've read any of my posts at all, you will realize too, that I stated that Microsoft DOES have a place in the software world, even in the server world, for low-end servers. So please, be civilized, and let's try and have a rational discussion (note I stopped sticking out my tongue:P)
Ok, so if microsoft claims that all this software runs faster with windows 2000 and it does not when independent tests are brought forward isn't that illegal? If a car manufacturer claims that the car can go 120 and can barely climb above 75 would not the same logic occur ?
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
ANOTHER 'M$' !!!!!!! Will wonders of wit and cleverness never end on slashdot!?
The Red Hat install was not out of the box. Before performing the test, they made sure to make it slower by tweaking an assorted set of parameters. Samba widelinks and Apache reverse name lookups for the logfile come to mind.
I notice that controlling ALL PR about apps seems to be a common tactic employed by software houses. You can't benchmark Oracle and publish it without approval. You can't benchmark Microsoft's stuff either. Obviously, software houses do not want objective informed decisions being made about their products.
I have a way to deal with this tactic. The computing professional equivalents of Consumer Reports can automatically rate products with such licenses UNACCEPTABLE. If they don't want benchmarks published then let's assume they have something to hide. The reason for ratings can be explained with the further proviso that there is only one way to lose the rating.....waive the requirement and allow honest testing to proceed.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Weird, 'cuz the Linux and BSD marketshares are also on the rise. Before you know it the combined marketshare of all platforms will be 568%!
There's lies, damn lies and statistics. Yournumbers don't include some important information. Like how the total market has grown. I suspect that their increased marketshare is due to brand new computer users, rather than 30 year Unix veterans switching over to Windows. Brand new computer users don't choose Linux. They choose what the majority of their neighbors are using.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
How is this any different than a totalitarian regime (i.e., China) monitoring the news and only allowing certain material that they deem "suitable for public consumption" to reach the masses? Microsoft has long said that their products are superior to their competition (Oracle, IBM, Linux, etc.) This type of censorship is stomach-turning. Come on, Microsoft, if you really believe your own press then there is no reason to supress the rights of free individuals in a free country to honestly and independently evaluate your product.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
I think you are trying too hard to find a thread of common sense from the company with the "best and the brightest". Based on their track record, this incident is in line with the long list of other stupid things they've done and gotten caught doing. If they were in fact trying to 'bait the community' it would get leaked like everything else and we'd have a healthy laugh about that. The key issue here is that open source works. It works well enough that they are scared. It remains to be determined if it will become a major profit maker for everyone trying to accomplish that, but it works for making great, stable operating systems that trounce expensive closed source alternatives. I for one could care about world domination. I think the idea is lame. Linux and FreeBSD and the other open source projects will continue on whether they dominate the world or not. That war has already been won. Just like the Internet would have continued on with or without the corporate involvement. Bashing microsoft has been very easy for the longest time. As long as they continue to do stupid things and get caught doing them, I'll be here to laugh at them. Since my operating system doesn't depend on a huge userbase to keep going, I don't have to care. 20 years from now if microsoft isn't around anymore, I'll still be using my OS for that reason. So you all continue to debate what they are doing, how they are doing it. I'll just laugh when they fuck up and get that superior feeling I get when I realize it doesn't effect me at all. I'm not fighting for anything. I already won.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I concur with the above AC post.
Can't you do a benchmark in a country where the no-benchmarking clause is not legal and publish the results here?
Slashdot 's editors are dickheads
Hi, where would like to go today?
What is that you ask? Are we the best product for you? How do we rate against others? - Trivial questions my friend, for we are the Bor..i mean Microsoft and Resistan..er, our products are Right For You (C) no matter who you are.
Did i mention that we are the biggest software company on Earth? How dare you try and subject us to such Consumer Reports drivel!!!
Sincerely, Bill Gates
Moderators need an additional choice: "Karma Whore" for people who cut-and-paste articles as their comments!
I took a moment to browse those links. For those too lazy, Microsoft has #1 - #4, and #9 positions.
What the most important thing to notice is that every Microsoft system there is running in a clustered configuration, while the other operating systems are not (go ahead, look for yourselves - paying attention to the last column).
Microsoft may have the highest numbers, but I think it's very telling that an AIX (IBM) machine hit the #5 spot all by its lonesome, but it took a cluster of machines for Microsoft to nail down the first four spots.
Perhaps we should cluster an equal number of the AIX systems and see where those land us.
--
The PHB's and People In Charge will be unaffected anyway, since they'll just go ahead with whatever "Solution" Microsoft forces on them, regardless of merit or test results. Even if this got a great deal of publicity, I don't see it changing anything on either the pro- or anti-MS sides, because both camps already have their mind made up (or had it made for them by the software licensing their company has agreed upon).
Plus, we've seen such reactions to benchmarking results from MS before, and it didn't really seem to affect their market share...
props to all dead homiez
But you were implying that Microsoft was having trouble because of the KDEs and GNOMEs of the world. How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that they're increasing their desktop marketshare? (For the record, the two closest competitors were MacOS at 4% and Linux at 1%.) And BSD? Come on.
Cheers,
Their SQL Server 2000 has been declared better than *something*...
Typical Microsoft response. If someone else has a technology that could damage them, they buy the company and hide the technology to collect cobwebs. If they don't like a company, they browbeat them into the ground(prime example, Netscape). If they don't like the test results, they say the test was illegal and it doesn't count(They did this a while back with a few Linux vs. NT tests too). If the test results come back bad, MS should see it as where they came short this round, but to accept and try to fix in the future. Learn from your mistakes, don't cover them up and lie about the matter.
They've only gone from an 89% desktop marketshare to 92% over the past year. Not only that, but they've only gone from a 38% server marketshare to 41% over the past year! Those poor bastards!
Cheers,
Keeping quiet about statistics is the best way to lie about them - This is just the same as the old toothpaste advertisments, that 'made 9 out of ten children have fewer fillings' - The results that the toothpaste company did not want seen were simply filed quietly out of sight. Companies releasing desired stats (and witholding undesirable ones) is nothing new... Its a simple fact :) There are lies, damn lies and then statistics; or in this case, Benchmarks :)
I looked and couldn't find the results. If you can find them, give us the link.
There, now you can trumpet the fact you know that people write Microsoft as M$.
Sheesh.
You make some good points, except there are java VMs for cell phones, and Amiga is the name of a computer as well as a company.
The main thing wrong with the (3) sentances is that their "astute" readers are wrong on several levels, first - just because something is meant to be platform independent doesn't mean it is, secondly there is no such thing as a platform independent language. It's the instruction set and the operating system that matter - Java is platform independent by virtue of the fact that it runs on a mini OS (which it calls a VM) that has been ported to run on other OSs. The other side is the instruction set, and it's quite possible that the VM hasn't been optimized for P4 yet, ie the VM optimized for PII architecture runs very slowly on P4, which is probably what the Intel exec meant - that would be interesting news.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
That single IBM machine costs $9.6 million (well, IBM says it will — it still isn't available yet) and was still beaten out by a cluster costing $5.3 million. Adding another AIX machine, even if you assume that its performance would scale linearly (and I've got a bridge to sell ya), would more than double the price of the no. 1 system and yet still not match its performance. Like someone else said, if they coulda, they woulda, for pride's sake if for nothing else.
Cheers,
Try a benchmark of NT4 without any service packs vs Win2k without any service packs. I think that may even things a bit.
:>
OTOH, if NT4 still wins it is time to get scared
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
Actually, the point is; thats what 'commercial support' is worth.
Pay loads for incompetent support that cant help you and who will then proceed to threaten to sue you if you tell anyone how bad the products are.
And if you cant switch support vendor, well, congratulations. You lose.
No "head" is "bad head".
If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
For example, compare the top result (Compaq/Win2K/SQLS2000) with the fifth result (IBM/AIX4.3.3/Oracle8.1.7). Both systems cost around $10M. The Compaq cluster scores about 2.3 times higher than the IBM system. The Compaq cluster is 24 8x700MHz PIII Xeon servers (192 processors). The IBM server is a single 24x600MHz RS64 IV (24 processors). With that sort of hardware disparity it is impossible to make any judgement on the software performance at all. The Compaq setup has much better price performance but you can't attribute that to the software. The second place DB2 cluster you mentioned is a 32 machine 4x700MHz PIII Xeon setup (128 processors) and scores much closer to the Compaq setup which also points to hardware as being the major factor.
The most interesting bit is that the software for the Compaq setup costs just over $3M, with the software for the IBM system being under $1M. Virtually all the software costs are in the DBMSs. If you have license 192 copies SQL Server is not cheap.
So how does it feel?
To sound like an idiot. I wouldn't consider someone who expresses their opinion about an Operating System a drone. Nor would I consider one who uses a particular Operating System a drone.
I think you are too judgemental because of your high opinion of Linux. I wouldn't call you a Linux Zealot though, I would call you a Linux Detriment.
See a Linux Zealot, doesn't Window bash. He knows the difference between his and that of his competition. Leaving it at that.
You are an individual who, yes may be smart enough to comprehend Linux but, haven't even contributed to it. Yet you bash, therefore making you a detriment to the Linux community. You care about the growth as long as someone else does it.
I have a very talented programming friend. He uses both Linux and Windows. However, he won't program in Windows, he refers Linux. However, he has never bashed Windows directly to anyone. A Linux Zealot in its true form. He knows the advantages between the two.
Now for my humble opinion.
You are wastng your breath. You better start making kernel mods quick. You better make a better Linux system. D-Day is coming. XP is going to fuck your little Open Source World up! I BETA test, and I jsut got the latest BETA. Holy Shit! And I thought W2K was stable after SP1. W2K is 95 compaired to this beast. It isn't as bloated anymore. Not like fucking Enlightment. Be afraid... I an personally guarentee that Linux is oging to have its world rocked upside down.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
So you have a new OS out that you want everyone to run. Would you want a benchmark coming out that says your old stuff is better. I'd like to point out that this article talks about SQL7. SQL 2000 runs MUCH better on Win2k than it does on NT4.
SQL7 was written to take advantage of NT4, not Win2k. I can't say that the test results OR Microsoft's actions suprise me much.
A speech...
If Consumer Reports did a test on a MS product and published the report. Would MS take them on in court?
CR has been around for a long time, maybe someone should look into this. There has to be a way for truth in consumer purchases.
ONEPOINT
spambait e-mail
my web site artistcorner.tv hip-hop news
please help me make it better
if you see me, smile and say hello.
Bayerische Motor Werken or something very similar (car fanatics or german readers will correct me i'm sure) approx == Bayern Car/Automotive Factory.
Next up on the automotive acronym quiz: what does DAF stand for?
But whose interested in cars anyway? motorbikes are far faster.... and a lot cheaper.
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
Also, it depends on how they had their Win2k box set up. Active Directory is a mess and could be slowing it down along with a bunch of other services that come with it by default that weren't part of NT.
Last I checked, SQL Server 7 was designed to run on NT 4, not W2K. It probably SHOULD be faster on NT 4. There are a lot of significant changes under the covers between NT 4 and W2K. If a company is upgrading to W2K, shouldn't they be upgrading to SQL Server 2000, anyway? I'd be more interested in seeing NT4/SQL7 vs W2K/SQL2000 benchmarks.
Highlights:
A recent study by Tolly Research, the independent testing arm of the Tolly Group, found that Windows NT delivers Gigabit Ethernet throughput equal to or better than Win 2000. Tolly's finding contrasts Microsoft's testing that found Win 2000 optimized to deliver gains in Gigabit Ethernet throughput.
Microsoft officials say Tolly's conclusions are not a fair comparison, citing variables such as client operating system, network adapters, LAN design, traffic-generating tools and methodologies.
Tolly says Microsoft's throughput numbers may be inflated by the NTttcp packet-blasting tool it used and by testing on a highly segmented LAN. Microsoft officials admitted their LAN had two clients per segment.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Erm, wasn't that a different product, which was also called Access before the better known product by that name existed? Or are you saying that a terminal emulator evolved into a database?
I miss Meept.
If such clauses were legally binding, every software publisher in the world would use them to exercise editorial control over reviews and comparisons that were unfavorable to their products. There would be no negative reviews of software and comparisons would disappear. The reason that this did not go to court is that Microsoft knows that they don't have a leg to stand on.
The software industry is in a precarious position. On the one hand, they are attempting to get UCITA passed, which would make shrink-wrap licenses binding. On the other, if it becomes apparent that they are putting unfair and overly restrictive clauses in their licenses, UCITA would be doomed and the validity of software licenses in general could be threatened in a court battle. Or, they could realize their worst nightmare: the courts could decide software was a product. Then the no-warranty, it-may-not-work, it-might-not-do-what-we-claimed crap would be worthless. Software vendors would be under the same standards as vendors of any product and would be forced to recall products and correct flaws rather than sell you updates.
can you give me performance numbers for Apples vs. Apples
Let's just say they're slightly better than Oranges.
Does my bum look big in this?
I read somewhere (C|Net I think) in an interview w/ Bill Gates and Steve Balmer during M$'s 25th aniversary bash, Balmer basically came out and said in so many words that Access was originally not a database application but a terminal emulator. Oh yes. Gotta excersise our "freedom to innovate" here!
-----------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------
Perversely greped and groped by PowerPenguin
Ahh, I see. So clustering is bad if it's Microsoft doing it, but the best thing since sliced bread as long as it's not Microsoft. After all, we are at the site that's had so much gushing over Linux clustering that "Imagine a Beowulf of these!" became a running gag.
Also, there are some pretty large holes in your logic based on what appears in the TPC-H list. Since Oracle didn't even make the list at all, your logic would also follow that "for large enterprise work, Oracle just doesn't appear to work." Pretty silly stuff.
Cheers,
It should be noted that for whatever reason, be it MS backing down or the company discovering they could publish it legally, the results ARE online.
In other words, MS didn't win that particular round.
I guess you could claim to be in PregreSQL mode? (-:
Left outer joins coming up in the next release, live backups/mirroring in place, and yes you can publish your benchmarks. Lookin' good...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm suprised they're not throwing FUD around at a time like this. Not that there's much to fear or doubt (unless you're them). Dang, just when I thought I could predict what they'd do in most situations too... ;)
terradot, growing awareness
Actually, there are.
They didnt try to squash the benchmarks when they were done against different OS's atleast. ITs Win NT and 2000. 2000 is pretty new and they are still tuning it up, so give them sometime and they would have it running better than NT. But how about the Oracle One Million AD. If you havent heard of it, then atleast go to some website where they have put up this ad which is so much bs about nothing.
Rapid Nirvana
If this is who I think it is, of course I'll marry you. Someday. :)
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
News at 11, Microsoft enforces same license that every other database vendor uses. AFAICR, no big time database vendor would allow you to publish benchmark results, not just Microsoft. Now if they were going to allow the results to be published if the Win2K box beat the NT4 box, then you may have something.
Besides, they left out way too much detail to get in a fuss over. Like maybe the NT4 box was a 4 way P4, and the Win2K box was a P133 overclocked to 166 MHz and with flaky 32MB simm. They never state that the same hardware was used.
While I have never been accused of being in Microsofts corner, they are in the right on this one and we have seen darn near every major* database vendor pull the same stunt.
*For some definitions of major.
That may be true, but it's generally assumed that upgrading the HW or OS would therefore result in an increase in performance. This demonstrates that NT to Win2k isn't a vertical upgrade, it goes a little sideways too.
Which is ok. It's not something that should be hidden, and certainly not something that should be censored with the threat of lawsuits based on bogus EULAs.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The best software available is the MS software you haven't upgraded to yet! :P
Hey, MS already has an OS in most computers already. As an evil company, it has to come up with some funky way to make money, right? Maybe they are making dubious 'new' OS because nobody wants to by MS cereal...
"Never, never suspect the dreams within the dreams of dreaming children." ~The Amazon Quartet
I'm just fine with PostgreSQL, thank you.
I gave up sigs almost a year ago.
I need more of a challenge. Dissing them for this would be like shooting fish in a barrel with a rocket launcher. I feel for all you MS supporters trying desparately to defend this. Good luck. Is it just me or has microsoft been doing a steady one major embarassing fuckup a day?
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
Wasn't there a law passed not long ago (it may have been the DMCA, I'm not sure), that said something about publishers having the right to force negative reviews of sites? Granted this is an "objective" benchmark (I know theres no such thing as an objective benchmark), but with a good enough lawyer, I would think MS would have a legitemate case.
damn your right
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
So while W2K is a good OS (I personnaly use it for my desktop), for large enterprise work, SQL Server just doesn't appear to work.
When they realized they couldn't fix the problem, they, as my son would say from Toy Story, put on their angry eyes and came after us.
I have to tuck that one away for future use..."yeah, our customers put on their angy eyes when we told them the project couldn't be delivered on time."
That's a pretty vague description of the situation.
Whatever CU did might have been perfectly reasonable relative to the conditions under which that product might be used. "abusing it like a user would" might be a perfectly reasonable testing methodology and this may have been the case.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
After all, M$ would never release anything that hadn't been dully and adequatly tested in a real world situation. The only conclusion that I can come to is that this level of performance is exactly what they intended....
W2K has been out for more than a year (when you count all of the RC-Betas). and it's not like W2K/SQL2K is an exotic combination of software....
I say let them die on the sword of their own marketing department. "Faster and more reliable than ever!" - faa!
Yuk. I don't want to get spammed with credit reports about all sorts of salesmen...
Benchmarks try to be repeatable and as a result measure what is measureable as opposed to what is important. Even under the best of circumstances, you can get anomalous results.
Linux already clobbered NT in a "mindcraft test".
Take away the 4x NICCPU arrangement from the mindcraft test and the NT 'advantage' went away. This was widely reflected in other benchmarks previous to mindcraft.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You're pretty close. The status of binaries as copyrightable was in doubt in the seventies, I understand. So EULAs were a way to prevent people from running wild with the things; they had to agree not to as a precondition to get it. Once all software was definitively granted the ability to get a copyright under basically the same constraints as anything other copyrightable work, EULAs had to take on a new function. Rather than protect publishers from users, they now had to grant users permission to make copies of copyrighted works. Without that statutory exception it is indeed murky as to whether the copies that have to be necessarily made to execute it are fair use. They pretty much are, we know, but it would take some time for the judicial system to arrive at that determination too.
But with the statutory exception and the ability to obtain a grant of copyright in place for binaries, EULA's are generally moot. Both sides are protected by law. The additional questions of the validity of the things in general makes their continued existance even less sensible.
I still feel that the best course of action is to not agree to 'clickwrap,' as they would seem to be the most enforcable of any of the EULAs possible, and to install software manually. One would hope that third party installer programs and scripts would appear on the scene, but most people do consider it easier to ignore the EULA and not really agree, so there's not a huge market.
One court case to work out the details would not be advisable unless it went all the way to the top. Better to have several cases going through the system to help build precedents. (which hopefully, would be favorable, not that the lower courts are on our side these days)
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
We know if CU did tests on M$ products and compared them to Linux/Unix products; and that M$ came out significantly ahead, then there would be some misinformation going around.
This is not going to happen. Consumer unions are interested about consumers and consumer products. SQLServer is not a consumer product, thus CUs have no interest on that. How may of you store your MP3 catalog in a db? Relational db? Commerical heavy-duty db (Oracle, Informix, MSSQL, Solid).
-P--
I hate people who quote
actually, dumbass, java started out as a project called oak in the late 80's ( I think ) and was orginally intended to run on your refrigerator, toaster and whatnot. It was a greawt idea, but didn't really have the viability to make it work. Oak progressed into java, and java progressed into what we have to today. I'm not sure if your problem is that you don't understand the difference between a VM (virtual machine) and a compiler, or you don't understand that Palm's and cell phones do infact have OS's on them. Please clarify the source of your ignorance.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
"Now Mr. Cringely... what did you say 2+2 was again?"
"Four"
"And if Big Brother Bill says 2+2 is five, or one billion, what is 2+2?"
"Four--" His answer vanished in a scream of pain.
SLOWNESS IS SPEED
CRASHING IS STABILITY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
--somewhere at Redmond
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
The internet is powered by real software - software that has been proven and is trusted by millions of individuals worldwide. Only the trusted Solaris enviroment can provide the mix of usability, reliability and performance needed to power the internet. Perhaps eventually Linux, NT, FreeBSD, and other lower-end solutions will catch up to the trusted Solaris enviroment, but for now, enterprise-level networks are primarily dependent on Sun Microsystems.
This is not to say that Microsoft software doesn't have a place on the server-side, I believe that all software has its place. Microsoft is good for low-end servers for companies with money to waste and are running non-mission critical, low-volume applications. Linux and *BSD are good for companies that are running medium-size businesses with medium-volume loads. But none of these systems are good for high-load, mission-critical database-driven systems. You'll find that most companies with demanding workloads are running Solaris and Oracle Database.The reason that Solaris can outperform these other systems is that the trusted Solaris system was designed by a team of elite engineers for maximum performace - it took the age-old UNIX tradition and streamlined it into a powerful operating enviroment that allows for optimum performace. Add to this the fact that the UltraSPARC technology is 64-bit, whereas Intel's technology is mere 32-bit (and soon will be pseudo-64-bit, but big deal) and you get the general picture - NT is an unproven toy operating system. Perhaps in 10 years when NT has been around half as long as the trusted Solaris enviroment and proven itself like the trusted Solaris enviroment has, you can start talking about how great it is...until then, just shut up - do the world a favour. You want to talk about scalability ? NT doesn't even compare with the trusted Solaris enviroment in this regard. Microsoft admitted this in a press conference in 1998.
MS Squashes SQL Benchmarks
How about a little clarity here. What is this supposed to mean? Did Microsoft try to beat MySQL benchmarks? Maybe they tried to beat their own numbers? How about:
MS suppreses SQL Server benchmarks
or something else that actually comminicates the meaning of the story.
what I meant was that there are not compiler written to run on PDA's and cell phones. I don't think anyone is compiling java source to java bytecode, using their cell phone yet.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
First of all, I'm not a Linux user. Thanks for making that assumption though. In the words of a friend of mine, "Linux is a whores OS. Everybody has had their dick in it". It's still a better alternative than most of what's out there. Second of all, I HAVE contributed to the OS that I do use. In fact, I've been a microsoft developer in the past. I know first hand how that whole process works and the MS failures are no surprise to me at all. As far as windows NT9 or anything hurting linux, how exactly is that going to happen? What is going to get fucked up exactly? Do you think linux fears microsoft? Why should it? There is absolutely nothing that microsoft can do to make linux go away. It's free, stable, and open. People will continue to use it for that reason. I personally don't use it, but would if I needed too. I'm much older than you think, much more experienced than you think, and much more talented than you think. This is why I don't use microsoft products. I have a brain and I know how to use it. My brain tells me I can do better. You should work on your brain. Someday you'll grow out of your professional wrestling approach to OS advocacy debates. :) D-Day for me was a while ago. D-Day for you will happen when you get some clue. If you are happy with windows, run with it. Lots of people are happy with AOL. Good for them. Tons of people are happy with automatic transmissions in their cars. Good for them as well. Some of us like to know how our computers actually work. That's what rocks my world upside down. :) Good luck to you.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I recall one test where MS had lined up three or four of its OSes and ran benchmarks, with the obvious marketing goal of "proving" that their latest OS was the best.
Except that they specifically instructed the testing lab to disable direct memory access for (I think) NT, it order to make it run way slower.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
Things wrong with just this one sentence:
As many astute readers have pointed out, Java's a platform-independent language. It doesn't matter if it's Pentium IV or Amiga. If there's a compiler for it, it will run.
1. Most of their readers are probably not that astute.
2. He probably doesn't know what astute means.
3. Pentium 4 is a processor, Amiga is a company
4. If there is a virtual machine for it, it will run, I doubt there are java compilers written for cell phones and handsprings.
I am allowed to bitch, because I have never said anything false, ever. EVER.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
Were S/390 machines banned from this test? SQL Server 2000 on shitty x86 hardware beating DB2 on the best platform for I/O. I don't think so.
I just checked with
with altavista's link:somesite function to no avail...
Linux rocks!!! www.dedserius.com
www.dedserius.com
VB != VisualBasic
I know it's in their license, but I have a serious ethical problem with a company being able to control "independent" reviews of their products.
I believe that it's only reasonable for a company doing product reviews to allow the vendor to respond. If Network World puts up a review saying that SQL is slower on NT5^H^H^HWin2000 than on NT4, Microsoft should not be able to kill the review. They should be able to respond, and Network World should post the response along with their review. That's called responsible journalism.
As a software consultant I've worked for several fortune 500/1000 companies and most had both MS SQL Server and Oracle or DB2 or who knows what. In EVERY instance it was NEVER the MS SQL Server handling the lifeblood transactions. The MS product was always handling table lookup and transitory information that was precursory to the real business transactions. This is how I gauge the real status of a database product. What do you trust it to do. Who cares how fast it is if you'd never put your business in its hands.
- Sig this!
Your objections fall into the category of "this could happen in the real world too" so they are valid things to test, and furthermore represent not insurmountable obstacles but simply engineering challenges, which, if you don't feel competent to solve, you should not be the one to work on.
I am an almost full-time GNU/Linux user, and an avid advocate for free software and publicly owned and specified intellectual property in general. I have been critical of Microsoft in the past because of their controlling character and insatiable greed, but all this Microsoft bashing is getting old. The excessive bashing may also indicate that Microsoft has been somewhat innovative, and, as a result, successful. I don't know of anyone trustworthy enough to be given control over the Internet or all technology, speak less of a corporate entity which exists solely for the purpose of making money. However, even though Microsoft seems to be a selfish, greedy, and controlling company that seeks to dominate the world, I really do think that the problem lies more with us when we vote with our dollars to implement their technology throughout our systems, instead of using free/open source alternatives which are as good, cost-free, liberatingly-free, and vendor lock-in-combating.
Flame at will. (Though I may disagree with what you say, I remain appreciative of your freedom to do so.)
They definately revealed some real problems in a second test... I wonder how MS vs Linux would do in Round 3?
A series of tests covering different hardware configurations...
1) Single processor File/Print/Web/FTP server
2) Dual processor
3) Quad processor
4) Oct processor (we do claim to do eight with 2.4... right?)
I'd be real curious how 2.4 stacks up to the Y2K bug... I mean Win2K
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
read again what I wrote and see for yourself, I didn't say they were, though they *are* considered laissez-faire as I said. Actually, I never refer to "free markets". I refer to "free market theory" and "free market principles" but never "free markets". The proper terminology is more accurately "perfect markets", but "free as in markets" is more ingrained in the language.
Cringe says the information is back on line. I poked around for quite a bit and did a bunch of searches on NetworkWorld Fusion. There's no link from the InfoWorld article.
If this is the right site (IDG publication), they certainly aren't making this easy to get to.
Why did I spend 20 minutes on this?
---
In a hundred-mile march,
-- Sinistar
-- Sinistar
Seriously, it looks like w2k has got a bad case of software bloat. But we should make sure that everyone knows what MS is doing. Just so that people get the appropriate warm and fuzzy feeling.
After all, it is NOT a bug. it is a feature.
For those interested, here is a link to the original benkmarks
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I wonder if they would like to see how MSQL Server compares to Win2K and NT4 with Wine under linux
* Carthago Delenda Est *
I find it a bit interesting that the article has no link to the websites of the testing lab or the actual benchmark result...
So where is it?
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Slash should do it.
My guess would be that MSSQL7 uses some system calls that are "native" in NT4, but are some kind of backwards-compatible kludge in W2k. If that's the case, it would make perfect sense that MSSQL7 would be slower on W2k, but MSSQL2k would be comparable.
Haven Co (Sealand) and do all the benchmarks there no laws can stop you.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
try, "a couple hundred thousand," buying hardware and setting up a pilot. And by the time you are done, any salvage value is eaten up by calendar time, staff, and opportunity costs.
Since configuring a DB is an art,
Mind if I speak harshly for a minute? Am I the only fucking engineer on this website? Yes, it is a challenge to set up a good test of a database. That's why it is so fucking important to centralize the task and share some good benchmarks along with opensourcing the test conditions. The objections you raise are not objections: you have correctly identified what the benchmarking task *is*. That's the first step to solving it. Why can't you see that?
I've seen not too few who are drones because they use Linux for simple things: 1) They think it's cool. Or why not 31337. 2) It's fast and stable. Or so they've heard it is. 3) It's great. They don't know why. And so on. There are intelligent Windows- and Linux users, as well as stupid ones. One is not smart simply because one use Linux. However, patience IS a good thing, when working with it.
Will work for bandwidth
(1) Microsoft Products are based on hypeware. Their statistics are not accurate and have been designed by their marketing team to distort facts and spread FUD about other platforms.
In reality, Microsoft is a very sick company. 80% of their products have either stagnated or are being pirated.Linux is gaining market momentum. Not only is Linux on the increase as far as low-end server use goes, it is also picking up marketshare in the desktop arena. Things like GNOME will really give Microsoft a headache. Recent research indicates that GNOME is more userfriendly than Microsoft's Explorer GUI. This was confirmed by an ex-Apple employee, one of the key GUI development engineers, who is now working on the Eazel project.
Add to this the fact that major companies like HP and Sun Microsystems will soon be shipping GNOME with their desktops and it spells the end of Microsoft desktop domination. The only way around this would be for Microsoft to conform and re-write their GUI to be more compatible with GNOME and Bonobo(tm) technology. However, if they did that, it would lead to a far easier route off of the Microsoft-only desktop, which would not be something Microsoft would want to do.(2) Microsoft is desperate. Their server products are not up to scratch and despite forging statistics and "proof" that their products are good on the server side, they are somewhat a joke in the actual industry. You obviously have never worked in the industry itself - the Microsoft NT product is reknown for the BSOD. The Microsoft 2000 product seems to have even more problems of its own, despite a few loud Windows supporters claiming they've never had to reboot it even though they've been running it for 14 months.
Because of this desperation, Microsoft has tried to imitate Sun Microsystem's successful Java technology with what they call ".NET". So what is ".NET" hmmmm ? A poor imitation of Java that is tied to Microsoft-based platforms.[warning -- off-topic] If Consumer Reports did a test on a MS product and published the report. Would MS take them on in court?
It wouldn't be the first time; recall about 6 years ago when Isuzu hauled Consumer Union's* arse into court, after CR had a report about Troopers flipping over.
The difference was that Isuzu was right in suing them; I don't recall the details, but CU had done something to destabilize the Troopers during testing.
We know if CU did tests on M$ products and compared them to Linux/Unix products; and that M$ came out significantly ahead, then there would be some misinformation going around. Can you say "MindCraft"?
* - publisher of Consumer Reports
Thus sprach DrQu+xum.
DrQu+xum: Proof that the lameness filter doesn't work.
It was the MS-DOS version shipped with the early Pentium systems, but it wasn't widely used because it was replaced by the version 6.22 (bug fixes, something like that). It was also the last Microsoft's consumer OS that came with a REAL manual instead of an advertisement book. A common setup was running Win 3.11 on top of it.
Mexico: 100% conservative's America now!
Of course that's hardly a ringing endorsement. "You can't get the best results with our new OS because the wonderful new features we're advertizing so much slow things down." The argument about Win2000 needing SQL2000 is plausible, but you do have to wonder whether it's really a good idea to be running software that's so dependant on the OS to get peak performance.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I agree about IE not being good enough until 4, but NS 3 was a good product, better than the competion, at least.
It's NS 4 that sucked.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Do you read?
The article says they contacted M$ and that their technicians worked on the "problem" for two weeks. I don't think they overlooked something like that.
--Tom
Tom Geller
The past couple of weeks have not been good for Cringely.
First the claim that Adobe Framemaker was going away, then Java won't run on Pentium IV, then this?
But then it is just a rumor column, and you can't believe everything you read.
It'd be nice if the actual NetworkWorld article was available somewhere to understand the specific issues.
They only forced them not to remove the IE icon on the desktop, not to avoid installing NS as well.
There was nothing that prevented OEMs from installing NS and giving the consumer the choice.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
In a surprise move President Bush today declared that being the victim of bullying is now a federal crime. "It's their own fault for being such wussies" Bush said. "The only good geek is a dead geek" chimed in VP Cheney who also responded that "We already have Microsoft. We don't need any more nerds anyway." Police taday began taking associates of coward murderer to prison camps where they will undergo psychiatric evaluation to determine if any of them are indeed nerds or geeks. "We will get rid of this problem once and for all" claimed President Bush "by turning anyone who is marginally a geed into football players"
You might want to check your IDC figures again :P they're pretty much rubbish :P 1%? I don't think so....now misquoting figures is one thing, but misquoting a SOURCE like IDC..well well....I don't think they'd appreciate you twisting their research like that.
Aren't there laws that protect consumers? Any company can place anything it wants into a license agreement, but it can't ALL be legal. We have to stand up for our rights!!!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
SQL server 7 was built to run on Win NT. SQL2000, the newer version, was built to run on windows 2000. You can not compare apples to oranges. Of course the version optimized for NT4 will run better on NT4, Just as the new version is optimized for win2k.
I agree, there is nothing wrong with dual stream files, the later two arguments are balantaly false.
I wish that other OS has multiply streams as well, so far, the only OS that I used that had them was NT.
Mac can only have two, NT can have unlimited.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
Imposing on the users a gag order on performance issues is a pretty clear indicator that the company's performance claims are fraudulent.
There should be conusumer protection legislation that prevents such clauses in EULAs.
btw, Rambus has a similar clause in its licensing contracts.
I'm wondering if they did any tests with Linux, BSD or Mac OS X Server. Why would the testing lab only test Win2k and Solaris? Don't testing labs usually test EVERYTHING!?
Just like any other DB/OS, Linux,Win32 or whatever, 90% of the problem is BLOAT!!!
You put your page in your profile, so this is fair. :)
h tm
:)
http://home.earthlink.net/~admiralnixon/geek/OSR.
"However, Windows 95 sucks! That is right, it sucks. However, it is still entirely DOS based."
entirely dos based eh?
"One system crash a day is an average."
One system crash a year would bother me.
"When released it had a counted 63,000 known bugs! "
I don't think any variant of UNIX has ever been released with that many bugs.
"System restore so you can roll back your system to an earlier date if it becomes unstable."
Some of us take stability for granted I guess.
Now, lets check out your 'expert' review of the linux OS.
"Linux - This is a touchy subject among all fans of Open Source. This is a totally free operating system. It is just totally different from Windows. Do not be expecting an easy transition."
Somehow I don't see it being a very difficult transition for me.
"It was built back in 1991 and has evolved into kernel build 2.4. It is stable in a manner of speaking. Different kernel builds mean re-compiling (meaning un-stability"
Means 'un-stability'. You must be some Linux expert to say this. Usually recompiling adds a feature or improves performance. I think you are confusing recompiling with service packs.
"that is why ID Software stopped writing for Linux)."
Last time I checked, ID is backing Loki games and Doom 3 will be released for Linux at the same time as the Mac and Windows version. Care to comment on that?
"Not to many people know how to do that, in fact 98 percent of people have no idea what compiling is."
Including you it seems. 98 percent of most people have no idea what brain surgury is like, but that doesn't stop people from learning it.
"It does not run any Win16 or Win32 apps."
Really? The WINE developers would be amused to hear that.
"It has its own API. Its main mode of support is forums where many new users get shot down by the older techno-junkies."
You sound bitter. Tried running Linux and couldn't do it I bet. With your attitude, it's no wonder they shot you down.
"It is, how do I say, complex."
Complex for you perhaps. You seem to be yet another scared windows user that can't learn something new. I feel for you.
"One upside to it is that everything is free for it. You can download it right now if you want to. Its problems lie in an unstable UI. As in, there isn't any standard UI. Seriously!"
The hell you say! Having the choice between thousands of 'UI's' or being locked into one. Which do you think is better? How does having the choice to run whatever 'UI' I want make it unstable? Some people are afraid of choice it seems. Especially those that are used to letting microsoft think for them.
"There are many programs for many different UI's. My advice, if you don't know how to set up a home network or don't know what the word compile means... stay away..."
Using your logic, I advise you to stay away. We don't need you. However, if there are any windows users out there that would like to start thinking for themselves, Please consider one of the many free UNIX variants out there.
"there are 11 bin folders and you will get totally confused."
Naw, they won't. You did though didn't ya. Your page speaks tomes. I almost feel sorry for starting this little flame war with you. You truly have no idea what you are talking about. Heed my advice from the prior post. Please go learn something. The professionals that do use this site don't need your posts. Good luck to you.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
You put your page in your profile, so this is fair. :)
h tm
:)
http://home.earthlink.net/~admiralnixon/geek/OSR.
"However, Windows 95 sucks! That is right, it sucks. However, it is still entirely DOS based."
entirely dos based eh?
"One system crash a day is an average."
One system crash a year would bother me.
"When released it had a counted 63,000 known bugs! "
I don't think any variant of UNIX has ever been released with that many bugs.
"System restore so you can roll back your system to an earlier date if it becomes unstable."
Some of us take stability for granted I guess.
Now, lets check out your 'expert' review of the linux OS.
"Linux - This is a touchy subject among all fans of Open Source. This is a totally free operating system. It is just totally different from Windows. Do not be expecting an easy transition."
Somehow I don't see it being a very difficult transition for me.
"It was built back in 1991 and has evolved into kernel build 2.4. It is stable in a manner of speaking. Different kernel builds mean re-compiling (meaning un-stability"
Means 'un-stability'. You must be some Linux expert to say this. Usually recompiling adds a feature or improves performance. I think you are confusing recompiling with service packs.
"that is why ID Software stopped writing for Linux)."
Last time I checked, ID is backing Loki games and Doom 3 will be released for Linux at the same time as the Mac and Windows version. Care to comment on that?
"Not to many people know how to do that, in fact 98 percent of people have no idea what compiling is."
Including you it seems. 98 percent of most people have no idea what brain surgury is like, but that doesn't stop people from learning it.
"It does not run any Win16 or Win32 apps."
Really? The WINE developers would be amused to hear that.
"It has its own API. Its main mode of support is forums where many new users get shot down by the older techno-junkies."
You sound bitter. Tried running Linux and couldn't do it I bet. With your attitude, it's no wonder they shot you down.
"It is, how do I say, complex."
Complex for you perhaps. You seem to be yet another scared windows user that can't learn something new. I feel for you.
"One upside to it is that everything is free for it. You can download it right now if you want to. Its problems lie in an unstable UI. As in, there isn't any standard UI. Seriously!"
The hell you say! Having the choice between thousands of 'UI's' or being locked into one. Which do you think is better? How does having the choice to run whatever 'UI' I want make it unstable? Some people are afraid of choice it seems. Especially those that are used to letting microsoft think for them.
"There are many programs for many different UI's. My advice, if you don't know how to set up a home network or don't know what the word compile means... stay away..."
Using your logic, I advise you to stay away. We don't need you. However, if there are any windows users out there that would like to start thinking for themselves, Please consider one of the many free UNIX variants out there.
"there are 11 bin folders and you will get totally confused."
Naw, they won't. You did though didn't ya. Your page speaks tomes. I almost feel sorry for starting this little flame war with you. You truly have no idea what you are talking about. Heed my advice from the prior post. Please go learn something. The professionals that do use this site don't need your posts. Good luck to you.
The most important thing any republican needs to know.
I work with SQL 7. We ran into some severe performance problems when we cranked a lot of transactions at it over ODBC. We found it to be slower than SQL Server 6.5, although some backwards compatibility prevented us from doing a real "apples to apples" comparison.
Also, our app runs a lot of CPU intensive transactions. SQL Server 7 is self tuning so we provided REAL slow service to our customers for a day or so while SQL 7 figured out what we were doing to it. We knew where the hot spots were, but were powerless to fix the problem because SQL Server 7 is more "user friendly".
Maybe MS did better with 2000? I don't care to find out. When PostgreSQL in a fault tolerant cluster starts to become more mainstream, I'm going to start looking at moving that direction.
What's going to happen when a windows XP comes out? Oh I get it you have to upgrade your database server too.
War is necrophilia.
FICTIOUS M$ PRESS CONFERENCE
"Thank you for coming. I would like to read a brief statement, after which I will take take your questions. Now, are there any questions?"
-----
Bow before my sig, for it is good.
I've watched the Slashdot community turn from all Linux to almost pro-Microsoft. I think fuddled attepts at MS bashing have turned into a spin doctoring that is very MS-esque.
The Kerberos thing, they try to sue people who publish their Kerberos specs, so they link them on Slashdot. Then they try to sue Slashdot. Then, they simply open their specs and we all see there was nothing worry about. (One could suspect them as baiting the community but I won't.)
Earlier there was MindCraft benchmarks, where NT whooped Linux. Well, as many first started attacking MindCraft for being skewed, they opened their process and showed that infact it was skewed --but not at least in the ways that the community had accused them of! (One could suspect them of baiting the community but I won't.)
Now we have MS apperantly squelching benchmarks on their SQL servers. Slashdot gets up in a riot, while many people point out that SQL 7.0 was ment for NT 4, and the 2000's were meant for each other.
Again a nice simple answer that could leave the community red-faced. On close examination however, we consider then what MS is doing in the first place? If MSSQL+ windows 2000 was faster than SQL 7.0 + NT4.0 then there is no to do. Such a benchmark would encourage a double upgrade rather than one! More money right?
So I take issue with those trying to come to MS's aid on this one. Do they understand what the real issue is? Its not MS's evil ways or kangaroo trial by community. Its simply that they should continue to be open and let their users figure it out for themselves.
Something is definitely fishy with their hardware if Win2K is twice as slow as NT4. I've run both servers with SQL7 intensively. You couldn't pay me to move back to NT4. 2000 isn't all that much faster, but it is much more stable and its a lot easier to use and administrate.
Want some real benchmarks? Try here. Notice a pattern? SQL Server is the fastest database server in the world. Not only that, but Win2K is in the top four slots. 2nd place is a DB2 server on Win2K. Here are real, industry standard tests performed by an independent organization, not a company with an agenda to promote or magazines to sell.
I'm not sure what the point of this article is, other than to stir up more mindless MS-bashing. Well, Timothy, maybe you should try SQL Server or another real database. Pretty much every day around noon we get the same problem because Slashdot can't handle displaying stories while lots of people are posting. A real database would do wonders to fix that.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
The closest artcile I can find is this one, and it compares the throughput of Gigabit Ethernet on NT vs W2K??
It kind of match Cringely's story:
Further proof that /. will print anything?
====
Codeala - Just another mindless drone
Certainly there are laws to protect consumers. In theory, we'd read the licensing agreement from Microsoft, have a good belly laugh, and buy someone else's product. The theory breaks down in practice, however:
First, the vast majority of people don't bother to read license agreements, so they don't know about these restrictions until long after they've bought the product.
Second, Microsoft's monopoly means many of us don't have a choice what product we use. The company we work for shoves Microsoft down our throats so that they can be "compatible" (note: I'm lucky enough to work for a company where over 1/3 of the employees use Unix or Linux, and we use Oracle rather than Microsoft's DBM products).
Last, but not least, a bizarre twist to U.S. laws allows for an abomination called a "shrink-wrap license," which you don't see until after you've implicitly agreed to it by opening the shrink wrap around the box it resides in.
And, by the way, if you think this twist on the reviews is bad, how about a licensing caveat from the industry I used to work in? When you buy the software, you agree to pay the software manufacturer a "software license transfer fee" of several hundred dollars if you ever sell it. Nasty, eh? I was proud to be the only leading software vendor in that industry that didn't charge those "transfer fees."
If any of you had actually read the Microsoft licenses, this goes back to NT 4.0, before service pack #1.
This license *ALSO* has a clause that if you make software, sell it to someone else and Microsoft is included in any lawsuit, *YOU* have to pay for Microsoft's defense.
If it was said on slashdot, it MUST be true!
A click through is not Law... click-throughs have all the legal binding of any other un-signed, un-witnessed agreement: none at all.
Big-money software licenses (such as Oracle and MSSQL licenses) often require a written contract that has all the consideration and everything, to the effect: "You give up $50,000 and the right to reverse engineer this software and publish benchmarks in exchange for the right to receive this software (we're not giving you the disc until we receive your signature) and use this software in commerce."
All your hallucinogen are belong to us.
Will I retire or break 10K?
After repeatedly saying I'm not touching that issue becuase it is incidental, you try to resurrect it. (And shoot for some mediocre personal attacks, you kindergarten superstar!)
Sorry, but what is tuned for what is not an issue I care about. I can't even see why it matters to Microsoft (for the reason I mentioned). And I said I'm *not* accusing them of baiting --becuase I am not. The other responder has a good point, MS doens't have the intelligence quota to accomplish such a clever device.
I *am* accusing people like you (and you know who you are) of diverting the issue with trifle little issues. All I am interested in is one simple question, will MS continue to make a positive difference and even win over community support by being open or will they continue to try to control the media with heavy handed censorship?
If there are tuning issues, then publish benchmarks to show it. Maybe you could if you are sooo interested.
Ducks and runs for cover.
Anybody know the performance difference of SQL 2000 on Win2000 vs NT4? I'm thinking SQL 7 was optimized for NT 4.
as i recall, neither MS or Oracle are very enamored with third party benchmarks. the only time they *don't* threaten the publisher is when their product "shines".
the results are just too easy to skew, and the real-world loading is tough to accurately model.
i'm trying to learn Oracle on linux -- it's pretty cool the way I can legally install a free OS, then download oracle 8i enterprise for personal use.
"oratcl" is now on sourceforge, and php3 has gtk+ bindings for standalone applications (but works great through a browser, of course).
it's a great time to learn about databases...just don't publish those benchmarks!
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
Under standard copyright law, something like benchmarks is considered fair use, and is thus not subject to asinine click through agreements. If something is not covered by copyright law, it cannot reasonably be covered by click through.
This is also the case in Europe, where, for example, you are legally allowed to resell Microsoft OS licenses. It is the only way to interpret copyright law wrt software that makes sense.
Oh, silly me. Who expected M$ to make sense ?
You don't think micros~1 techs could have figured out an OS configuration issue? The article states that they did consult micros~1 to help them with the problem. Reading between the lines once the m$ techs figured out that it was NOT an OS configuration issue they freaked and said "show these numbers to anyone and we'll sue".
(B) + (D) + (B) + (D) = (K) + (&)
Kinda contradictory "I have contributed to the OS that I use. In fact I have been an [MS] developer in the past." and "This is why i don't use [MS]products." Do you even know whay OS you use? Who ever heard of NT9? Which makes me doubt your proclaimed prolithic age and knowledge and "talent." (adjective in quotes is used to preserve the anonymity of another prefered word)
I know how my computer works and I use the OS that actually has stable drivers for the hardware I use. I will never in my time see a driver that is reasonably stable for a Santa Cruz.
How exactly does the whole MS process work? Since you seem to know oh so much about Microsoft.
As for nay pro wrestling approaches, I think between the two of us you have the better career with that load of shit you posted. My brain, NT9, OS contributions, transmissions? Damn, you make Hulk Hogan himself seem less worthy.
My whole point behind XP is this. Before NT everything was primarily Unix run. Servers that is. Now look at the market. Unix has lost half of its original market dominance. Mainly to NT. I mean even SQL Server on a Compaq system show better results that Oracle.
XP is primarily a spin-off of NT just faster, better and less bugs. We have all read and know. Linux will be hurt as it falls into the "Unix" server OS. It doesn't matter who pushes and markets it. Windows is gaining ground over the Unicies. That is why you have to be afraid. Unix is losing ground and I find it hilarious that you all insist that it is gaining.
What I find even funnier is that you all say Windows is bloated. Well my windows never took two to three minutes to start like Linux or Unix.
I am just merely preaching that not one home-end user will switch to anything but maybe Macintosh because everything else is infact inferior in many aspects... especially UI and development. That is the truth and it was all preached with the supposed brain I have to grow or whatever the hell you said Mr-developer-of-his-OS-and-Microsoft.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
are your homo-sexual tendancies coming out. I should let you know I am straight before your hopes get to high. I know it is hard being in your closet anonymous Coward but with time you will enjoy who you are and won't have to be so angry that youc an't be like all the other boys. You have to be the different one. But we need people like you so we can discriminate you and you can go have your Gay Marches outside DC and anjoy your Gay Day at Disney World. Just try not to be so angry. Just be yourself. We will accept you as you are. Even if it is homosexually.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"
Don't let pride be your biggest weakness.
~AdmrlNxn
Whistler is to Zeus as Linux is to Hercules
~Admrlnxn
"I got your mom in my trunk"