[Knitebane]

Wow! MS pulls a better score on faster hardware! Wow!

But running on identical hardware, Linux runs faster, as shown by the chart.

Gee, I wonder what will happen when they put Linux on the same hardware as the number one scoring system?

Nice spin attempt, but once again, your FUD doesn't stand up to the light of day.

Back into your crack, cockroach, the lightswitch is on.

[Bush2000]

Wow! MS pulls a better score on faster hardware! Wow! But running on identical hardware, Linux runs faster, as shown by the chart. Gee, I wonder what will happen when they put Linux on the same hardware as the number one scoring system? Nice spin attempt, but once again, your FUD doesn't stand up to the light of day. Back into your crack, cockroach, the lightswitch is on.

Well, considering that the Linux box that you're crowing about won't even be available for another six months, I expect that we won't know for the next year whether Linux can match what Win2K does today. Nice try.

[Dominic Harr]

Wow! MS pulls a better score on faster hardware! Wow!

The MS solution is tested on a ProLiant DL760-900-128P with 272 processors.

Total system cost: $10,603,803.

The Linux solution uses the HP ProLiant DL580-PDC 32P C/S , 32 processors.

Total system cost: $2,380,546.

So let's see . . . so if you're willing to spend a mere $8 MILLION more per machine, you can get better performance out of Windows.