[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by Person » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



I've got to forward this to c.o.la.  Ziff-Davies did a benchmark test
that didn't promote windows despite the numbers?  I even have trouble
accepting this from ZD:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 18:36:23 +0100

Organization: Posted via the Nacamar Network
Newsgroups: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy

Just take a look at some benchmarks which compare Linux and NT as
file- and webservers at:

http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,387506,00.html

Yes, the benchmark has been done by Ziff-Davies. They've been trying
to hold Linux down for quite a few years, so you can't accuse them
for being unfriendly to M$ or NT.

Just guess who wins these benchmarks?

It is a rhetorical question: of course, Linux wins in every case,
as Linux fans told you before (some people, like Boris, had told
you its a lie, now you can see for yourself. I'm just thinking to
remove Boris from my killfile to see how he will react...).

It shouldn't surprise you to see what a big difference Linux makes,
and how much faster it is. At 32 clients, Linux + Samba has an
advantage of 250% (as a file server). As a web server, Linux is
up to 50% faster. Only with very few users NT is as fast as Linux.

I've just told you... and don't forget to compare the price... hehe

I hope one day they will redo this benchmark with kernel 2.2.x. Linux
has improved its performance, esp. on SMP-machines, but even for now
it kicks NT's butt.

Ciao,
Volker Dittmar

 
 
 

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by KaH » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



>I've got to forward this to c.o.la.  Ziff-Davies did a benchmark
>test that didn't promote windows despite the numbers?  I even have
>trouble accepting this from ZD:

Yeah, I read the article (there was a link from /.). Also noticed
that there wasn't an awful lot of feedback from the Windoze folks;
guess their gears were kinda jammed.  :-)

Quote:>It shouldn't surprise you to see what a big difference Linux makes,
>and how much faster it is. At 32 clients, Linux + Samba has an
>advantage of 250% (as a file server). As a web server, Linux is
>up to 50% faster. Only with very few users NT is as fast as Linux.

>I've just told you... and don't forget to compare the price... hehe

>I hope one day they will redo this benchmark with kernel 2.2.x. Linux
>has improved its performance, esp. on SMP-machines, but even for now
>it kicks NT's butt.

And that was out of the box, with a bloated, stock kernel. Wonder
what would have happened with a stripped-down-and-compiled kernel?

Quote:>Ciao,

Servus!

Quote:>Volker Dittmar

--
         .       .
     |< /-\ (-) /-\


     Debian GNU/Linux

 
 
 

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by Ulric Eriksso » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00




> >It shouldn't surprise you to see what a big difference Linux makes,
> >and how much faster it is. At 32 clients, Linux + Samba has an
> >advantage of 250% (as a file server). As a web server, Linux is
> >up to 50% faster. Only with very few users NT is as fast as Linux.

> >I've just told you... and don't forget to compare the price... hehe

> >I hope one day they will redo this benchmark with kernel 2.2.x. Linux
> >has improved its performance, esp. on SMP-machines, but even for now
> >it kicks NT's butt.

> And that was out of the box, with a bloated, stock kernel. Wonder
> what would have happened with a stripped-down-and-compiled kernel?

They would have found the network cards, to begin with.

Ulric

 
 
 

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by Greg Thor » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00






> > >It shouldn't surprise you to see what a big difference Linux makes,
> > >and how much faster it is. At 32 clients, Linux + Samba has an
> > >advantage of 250% (as a file server). As a web server, Linux is
> > >up to 50% faster. Only with very few users NT is as fast as Linux.

> > >I've just told you... and don't forget to compare the price... hehe

> > >I hope one day they will redo this benchmark with kernel 2.2.x. Linux
> > >has improved its performance, esp. on SMP-machines, but even for now
> > >it kicks NT's butt.

> > And that was out of the box, with a bloated, stock kernel. Wonder
> > what would have happened with a stripped-down-and-compiled kernel?

> They would have found the network cards, to begin with.

> Ulric

Does anyone have the link to sad article?
                                                         -G
 
 
 

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by Alan Boy » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00



> Does anyone have the link to sad article?

It wasn't sad. ;)   Try
http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,387506,00.html
The graphs and such are on the "Related Links"
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything.  A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere."  -- Harry S Truman
 
 
 

[Fwd: Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks]

Post by Greg Thor » Sun, 31 Dec 1899 09:00:00





> > Does anyone have the link to sad article?

> It wasn't sad. ;)   Try
> http://www.zdnet.com/sr/stories/issue/0,4537,387506,00.html
> The graphs and such are on the "Related Links"

Hehe.  I tried to sound all professional by saying "said article," but
ended up just tripping over my own feet and falling on my face.
 
 
 

1. Linux vs OS2 vs NT vs Win95 vs Multics vs PDP11 vs BSD geeks

        Every machine and operating system has got its useful
purpose...

        I see no point in argueing with people which OS is better, and
which is worse, and what will survive and what wont...

        The bottom line is obviously the best OS is the one that make
the end user most productive.    Ive used quite a variety of software
from intel, ibm, MS, sun, GNU, DEC/compaq, etc,   and everything OS
has got its UPz and DOWnz, so depending on what you want to do with it
yer machine, probably determines what OS you run.

        So lets cut to the chase -  OS bashing is a waste of time,
and most of the time I'd say the person putting it down just hasn't
seen that particular OS's potential,  or should I say speciality....

      Hell,  Plan 9 has even got some interesting features.. <snicker>

       And all PC users know,  that no matter what use on a day to day
basis on the PC, that one day you will need to boot good ole ancient
DOS to do something...

2. Encoders and FTP

3. Linux vs. NT Benchmarks - Put your money where your mouth is!

4. mksysb F50 -> 44P-170

5. Linux vs. NT: Benchmarks

6. Opinions on Micron for linux

7. A useless NT vs Linux benchmark

8. SCO R3.2V4.2 on IBM PC320

9. Benchmarks of software on NT vs. linux

10. FWD-NT/IIS vs. Linux/Apache test from Germany.

11. GNU/Linux vs. NT (fwd)

12. Filesystem benchmarks: ext2 vs ext3 vs jfs vs minix

13. BENCHMARKS - SCO vs Solaris vs Unixware vs etc...