Linux on Intel appears limited to 960 MB of physical RAM by design. If NT
with 4 Gigs runs better, then we must wait for the 64 bit version.
http://www.lwn.net/ has an overview on how the playing field was not level.
It was a vanilla Linux setup but a carefully tweaked NT setup with some "use
at own risk" goodies from the M$ ftp site.
Patrick
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On
> Behalf Of Ewan Dunbar
> Sent: Wednesday, 14 April 1999 21:26
> To: Greg Thomas
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [SuSE Linux] <OT> Latest Mindcraft Linux bashing
>
>
>
> On Wed, 14 Apr 1999, Greg Thomas wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > See http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/nts4rhlinux.html#mccert. MS
> > sponsored study shows NT beats Linux, 2.5x faster for file serving and
> > 3.7x faster for web serving, on a Dell 4Way Xeon server.
>
> They apparently did the same thing for Netware. Notice that they only made
> 970Mb of RAM available for Linux, compared to the 4Gb for NT? And the fact
> that in the Samba comfiguration, they set widelinks to "no"? And that,
> like the Netware-bashing before it, this Linux-bashing was sponsored by
> everyone's favourite software company?
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Ewan Dunbar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ------------------------------------------------
> Visit Preston Manning: Action Hero at
> http://earl.thedunbars.com/pmah/index.html
> ------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
> this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
> Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
> archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
>
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
