[Ti] Apple's True Market Share!

[Mark C. Langston]

On Fri, Dec 13, 2002 at 12:13:48AM -0600, Chris Olson wrote:
> 
> And then move to the server benchmarks, where FreeBSD or linux would 
> most definitely be a better choice to evaluate processor performance and 
> data thruput, but they're still using Windows.  Makes one wonder if the 
> processor design is a little "slanted" towards the Windows operating 
> systems.
> 
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_863_1968,00.html
> 


I see you ignored my previous explanation and suggestion.

> Ziff-Davis, for one, has published benchmark results showing Windows 
> 2000 Server beats x86 Linux and FreeBSD.  Can't find the link in my 
> bookmarks, but a google search should turn it up, if you're interested. 
>   If that's really true, then one could hypothesise that if x86 is 
> indeed not optimized for Windows, then Windows is the superior operating 
> system.

And here, you've ignored my explanation of why these benchmarks are
performed, and why they're inherently biased and unfair.  I could run
the same benchmarks and get any result you ask me for.

The people who publish benchmarks wouldn't know the scientific method
if it bit them on the arse.

-- 
Mark C. Langston                                    Sr. Unix SysAdmin
mark at bitshift.org                                       mark at seti.org
Systems & Network Admin                                SETI Institute
http://bitshift.org                               http://www.seti.org