When will these people realize that if Microsoft funds the study, Microsoft will come out on top? I mean who in their right mind would fund a study to show they suck? That was the whole thing, but here's the link if you want it.
What's amusing about it? Microsoft paid for it, but it was an independant company that carried it out. Obviously Microsoft aren't gonna hand out loads of money to test the areas where it knows that Linux can beat it, but the test shows that Microsoft software is quicker and easier to set up. Therefore, the results are useful for people who want to set up servers quickly.
windows is therefore better cos we all reinstall it every day. that's like choosing a server OS based on boot time
You dont find it amusing that the one that pays for it gets the best result? Miscrosoft will pay lots of money to show that they are better at it even if they are not. They have done it before and will do it again.
Of course I agree, but my point is that if you pay somebody to do a study you dont want to come out looking bad. An example: Smoking is bad for you. We have known this a very long time. In the past the cigarette companies have found a lot of research companies theat have proven that it was not.
nope. last time i bothered to time a slack setup, it took 18 minutes without rushing. windows takes a lot longer on the same hardware
You just made your own point moot. "last time i bothered to time a slack setup" implies you're an experienced Linux user. Think it would take me 18min to set up? Regardless of who you are (an experienced user or a layman), Windows will always take around the same time to install similar hardware, as there is very little human input needed (time, date, registration and language IIRC).
Wheras a funded study does shed an element of doubt, it does not necessarily mean that it is inherantly false. Any 'OMG!!! M1cr0$0ft is t3h sU><!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111ONE' talk deserves a slap So lets try and keep this unbiased. All this report measured was setup time. On the whole, Windows is a much faster and simpler install than a Linux install (where the Linux install is to a comparative level to the Windows install - same software and so forth...a media player, paint package, notepad package, GUI...) *n
that's still not the important point - who cares how long it takes to set up? the reliability, speed and security are far more important. why didn't MS focus on these areas instead? presumably linux beats windows easily in the other, important, aspects.
Its importance is irrelevant. The test shows what it shows, nothing else. It wasn't an overall Windows vs. Linux test and shouldn't be taken like that. Ok, Micosoft funded it because they knew that was one area where they were better and an independant test will show everyone that.
