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: johnd who wrote (47501)	7/5/2000 5:35:24 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Maybe this is what happened: zdii.com "At the Windows 2000 launch in February, chairman Bill Gates proudly announced Microsoft had achieved a world-record transaction processing result with Windows 2000 and SQL Server 2000, running on a dozen Compaq ProLiant servers. But last Thursday, the Transaction Processing Council voted down the Microsoft-Compaq result, saying it violated a technical data-transparency provision." JMHO.

To: johnd who wrote (47501)	7/6/2000 3:05:06 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Sun challenged the Compaq result on the basis that the SQL database did not allow update of a primary key under some circumstances. While this did not affect the benchmark, since that operation is not required, Sun and several others (including Oracle) argued for, and got, a "clarification" of the audit requirements. It is interesting that most of the benchmarks published prior to the most recent Oracle results also would not pass this requirement. Also, the new requirement was not a part of the benchmark audit at the time Compaq ran the test, Compaq and Microsoft presented a version of the configuration which met the new requirement, but Sun pressed to have the results withdrawn and re-submitted, and the Council agreed in a vote of all the members. A benchmark like this costs several million to run. Given the results just published, it is no surprise that Compaq declined to re-run the old benchmark. I would expect them to now be working on a result which compares to the IBM DB2 result rather than spending millions to be #2 and #3...