Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47471)	7/3/2000 6:11:51 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

RE:"This is one of the reasons I like AT&T going forward. It's a natural market for AT&T (once they get off the dime). " You must have loved AT&T going BACKWARDs too! Once they get off the dime? Heck pay phones are now $.35. <G> I'm afraid AT&T is too fat and there is too much LD competition... I canceled them and have no LD carrier... Jim

To: JC Jaros who wrote (47471)	7/5/2000 12:57:00 PM
From: Rusty Johnson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Linux beats Windows 2000 in benchmark linuxtoday.com Spec.org has just published the "Second Quarter 2000 SPECweb99 Results". Twenty one machine from various vendors including IBM, Dell, Compaq, and Hewlett Packard were tested and scored based on their ability to handle "Conforming Simultaneous Connections". The interesting part is that two of the machines are from Dell, with almost exactly the same hardware and yet very different benchmark results. Both machines are Dell PowerEdge 6400/700, one running Red Hat Tux 1.0 and the other running Windows 2000 Advanced Server. Both were running with 4 CPU's (700MHz Pentium III Xeon), 4 Network Controllers and 8GB of RAM. There were a few differences in the hardware: the W2K machine had 7 9GB 10kRPM hard drives with a Dell PERC2 Disk Controllers and the Tux 1.0 machine had 5 9GB 10kRPM hard drives with an Adaptec AIC-7899 SCSI Disk Controller. In addition, the Client machines, while being very similar in configuration, had the same brand of Network Controller (Alteon) but a different model number for the W2K test (AceNIC PCI) than the one for the Tux 1.0 test (AceNIC 1000SX). Here is the interesting part: The W2K machine received a score of SPECweb99 = 1598, which means that it was able to handle a median of 1598 Conforming Simultaneous Connections. The Red Hat Tux 1.0 machine received a score of SPECweb99 = 4200, which means that is was able to handle a median of 4200 Conforming Simultaneous Connections. ... What does this mean? In the real world, probably not as much as it would seem. Benchmarks in general are typically set up in an ideal environment. Real world environments tend to be quite different. However, this does indicate that Linux is moving in the right direction. Thanks to slashdot.org