Oh, and where's your rebuttal for the large number of other points made in the original post? Or is the only false word you could find in this entire post the single word "fake"?
I've WORKED on many benchmarks during competitive bid processes for a large mainframe corporation, and I am fully familiar with vendors (including my own at the time) doing whatever they can to run the most work in the least time, per specifications.
It might have been possible to skew things 10 years ago, but do you even know what the TPC benchmarks are? It was Sun that started complaining several years ago (after years of owning these benchmarks) when Microsoft/Intel platforms started passing them by in intermittent tests. For the past three years, the Microsoft/Intel platforms have run away with the benchmark tests, while AT THE SAME TIME having to adhere to MORE strict guidelines at Unix vendors' insistence!
These guidelines are VERY strict and tightly controlled, checked, monitored and verified. Billions of dollars are at stake, and NOT ONE vendor complains about the results of a test, because they know that for the specified guidelines they did the best they could, and the guidelines have been finely tuned by the non-profit council to now simulate a very diverse, real-world operating environment (much at the behest of Sun -- be careful what you ask for.)
It is Sun that is asking for changes in the guidelines (such as lengthening the tests from 20 minutes to 2 hours, thinking that MS$ platforms/software would crash in the meantime), only to have their clocks cleaned each time.
If you guys don't know what in the heck you are talking about, then don't say anything. This is running on three years, fellas.
It would be one thing if MS$/Intel platforms were edging comparable Sun/Unix platforms slightly...but they are getting completely dusted in price and performance (Come on -- 700,000+ Transactions Per Minute versus 200,000+ for 1/2 to 1/3 the price!!)
It is not just the TPC-C benchmark (which is a very diverse, highly complicated business transaction environment), but other benchmarks as well (such as the web-related benchmarks).
You are right about one thing: MS$ has thrown tons of money at their products -- by partnering with Unisys, Compaq, HP (formerly), to obtain these companies' experience and expertise in adapting Operating System code, Database Code, etc., onto more powerful platforms with larger back-bones to enhance I/O, Multitasking and channel transfer to mainframe-level performance.
Yes, Microsoft has spent billions in the effort. Other companies such as Unisys and Compaq have also spent millions creating Win2K HW architectures that mimic their high-performance mainframe environments (i.e., Tandem and Unisys 2200/Clearpath), and they have schooled MS$ on how to update their code to take advantage of the hardware.
Once again, I know the facts on this one. Microsoft has spent the money partnering with mainframe-level companies that have created high-performance Intel platforms using their mainframe experience, and teaching Microsoft how to adopt their SW products to these enhanced Intel platforms.
Sun, sadly, has not kept up. It won't be too long before Sun's exhorbitant prices and performance levels of 1/3 of MS$ platforms will cause companies to ask themselves if they are, in fact, just buying the "name."
Win2k Advance Server software running on these high-performance platforms don't crash like Win95, fellas. That was yesterday's news...but you believe what you want.
This is the LAST time I will attempt to bring blind Unix followers into the future.
Have a nice day.