News is supposed to be objective by nature, otherwise it's misleading to call it news -- someone who posts news which isn't objective shouldn't call it news. Maybe it would be called a "story" or "an opinion" or something else, but not news.
I agree that microsoft has had a history of trying to crush some of the great things this site supports, but that's no reason to flame them constantly (sometimes I think people flame Microsoft just to jump on the bus with all the "elite hackers". Like it's "the cool thing to do"). Real news should see no bias -- and that's what makes it news. In supporting this philosophy of "flaming at every chance" you make yourself look like the little guy bitching because he is on bottom of the barrell. If you really think linux is better (which I, in fact, do) then prove it. Give us the facts and don't be ambigous. Otherwise, you're just as guilty as those culprits you are accusing.
Maybe he is paid to go around defending Microsoft, but never the less, he does have something of a point. I always liked a fair fight. If you win, you were absolutely better. If you lose, it was a fair fight, so shut up.
I think the main point to take in mind is the fact that it was run on a Merced SIMULATOR. The simulator part makes me skeptical. If it was running on real silicon, I suppose I wouldn't have much to say (and this article would have never appeared in the first place). I don't know anything about this "simulator" but I doubt that it gives 1:1 results. In other words, the two arn't the same. For one, the merced is hardware and the simulator [I'm assuming] is some sort of software running on top of a harware base. NOT THE SAME.
Why didn't intel just run it on a real Merced then?? Maybe they couldn't get their hands on one, maybe it wasn't working.. some things can only be left to speculation.
Regarding this article: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/server/beta/hall/ 99Aug04.asp (posted on Aug 25 on Slashdot.org) The original developers are bragging about how good their design and plan was (for NT).. They say: "It cost us a lot to keep portability alive, but we did, and that has made it easy for us to respond to things like Merced," he says, referring to the 64-bit chip from Intel. Well obviously they didn't make it that easy..;)
Slashdot Mirror
News is supposed to be objective by nature, otherwise it's misleading to call it news -- someone who posts news which isn't objective shouldn't call it news. Maybe it would be called a "story" or "an opinion" or something else, but not news.
I agree that microsoft has had a history of trying to crush some of the great things this site supports, but that's no reason to flame them constantly (sometimes I think people flame Microsoft just to jump on the bus with all the "elite hackers". Like it's "the cool thing to do"). Real news should see no bias -- and that's what makes it news. In supporting this philosophy of "flaming at every chance" you make yourself look like the little guy bitching because he is on bottom of the barrell. If you really think linux is better (which I, in fact, do) then prove it. Give us the facts and don't be ambigous. Otherwise, you're just as guilty as those culprits you are accusingMaybe he is paid to go around defending Microsoft, but never the less, he does have something of a point. I always liked a fair fight. If you win, you were absolutely better. If you lose, it was a fair fight, so shut up.
I think the main point to take in mind is the fact that it was run on a Merced SIMULATOR. The simulator part makes me skeptical. If it was running on real silicon, I suppose I wouldn't have much to say (and this article would have never appeared in the first place). I don't know anything about this "simulator" but I doubt that it gives 1:1 results. In other words, the two arn't the same. For one, the merced is hardware and the simulator [I'm assuming] is some sort of software running on top of a harware base. NOT THE SAME.
Why didn't intel just run it on a real Merced then?? Maybe they couldn't get their hands on one, maybe it wasn't working.. some things can only be left to speculation.
Regarding this article: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/server/beta/hall/ 99Aug04.asp (posted on Aug 25 on Slashdot.org) The original developers are bragging about how good their design and plan was (for NT).. They say: "It cost us a lot to keep portability alive, but we did, and that has made it easy for us to respond to things like Merced," he says, referring to the 64-bit chip from Intel. Well obviously they didn't make it that easy.. ;)