HP3000-L Archives

October 1999, Week 2

HP3000-L@RAVEN.UTC.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Bruce Toback <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 15:07:16 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Denys writes:

>(This reminds me of a flap some months ago when Apple stated their iMac was
>faster than any Windows-based system, no matter the price.  Independent
>testing
>showed this claim to be totally untrue.

This is incorrect; the "independent" tests showed no such thing. The
PowerPC chip is much faster than Pentium on the BYTEMark benchmarks.
These are the benchmarks that Apple was using.

>...I am sure there are still a lot of people who still believe that
>one,
>or who refuse to believe the independent tests.

The question is, are they testing something that is relevant to my needs?
The "independent" test was of Microsoft Office. MS Office is
_interpreted_ on Macintosh platforms; it's not native code. So of course,
it's slower on the Macintosh. MS, like most companies, chooses benchmarks
that show off their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. What matters
is, "how will this platform (OS plus hardware plus application) perform
in _my_ environment?" Neither BYTEMark nor the "independent" (really,
Wintel-centric magazine testing lab) benchmarks did anything to answer
that question.

Microsoft's NT/Linux comparison contains a large number of half-truths
and deceptive statements, particularly where security is concerned. What
I think is amusing is the hubris about SMP. Microsoft somehow thinks that
they're the only people in the world who can write an SMP kernel. There's
also their intrinsic assumption that since NT has a GUI, it must be easy
to administer. As HP 3000 system managers know, GUI is neither necessary
nor sufficient for "easy".

Incidentally:

>Windows
>2000 is extremely user friendly and a breeze to install, provided you have
>the
>hefty system required.  This means something bigger than 300 MHz Pentium II.

What does it do to TCO when your software strategy requires you to throw
away your hardware every two years?

-- Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
btoback AT optc.com                |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay
Mail sent to [log in to unmask] will be inspected for a
fee of US$250. Mailing to said address constitutes agreement to
pay, including collection costs.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2