"ray" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:
You don't. micros~1 is calculating the cost per Megabits per
second. Laughably, they would have gotten the Mbps even *lower* for
windows if they had used faster Xeons, but they wanted to match the
"900"'s to lend credibility to their ridiculous "study". Very
deceptive numbers game, to wit:
Linux ... two z900 ... CPUs" at $415
Windows ... two 900 ... CPUs" at $40.
See how it looks like an even test at a glance? Does anyone really
think micros~1 chose 900 mhz Xeons for any other reason than that?
An IBM z900 is a massive beast, with water pipes sticking out of it!
Of course it's more expensive than a 3 year old PC. micros~1 has
really shown their dishonesty in full light with this "study". BTW,
a z900 can support 800,000(yes, that's eight hundred thousand)
concurrent users. Can that little PC do that? I wonder. Can
windows do it? I know it cannot for a fact.