Legal Ramifications of Microsoft Benchmarks?

imagi asks: "I'm interested in finding out about the legal ramifications of publishing benchmarks on Microsoft Products. I've noticed that many contain a clause forbidding you from giving out performance information. Is this legal? As a consultant I like to advise customers on the best solution for their needs, however without being able to backup recommendation with independent benchmarks, I'm having to take Microsofts word for it. After having read some of their previous FUD (for example Linux Myths) their claims ring hollow. My question then: Is this legal to forbid benchmarking and what would happen if I were to set-up an independent website comparing MS SQL Server vs Oracle 8 on Linux?" There are lies, damned lies and, of course, benchmarks. I find it silly that Microsoft could take action against you if you've shared information that they published and released, but I could be wrong. Can anyone shed some light on this?

Publishing

[Matts]

I think this rule is about publishing the benchmarks. You could as a consultant do the benchmarks yourself, and give your clients that information, but I don't know if they will believe them (because they're not independant).

Note though that MySQL publishes some simple benchmarks for some db's that may be of use to you.

Also don't be too quick to dismiss the MS SQL vs Oracle benchmarks. MS SQL has it's origins in Sybase SQL Server (back somewhere at version 5 of Sybase I think), which has always been quicker than Oracle at a lot of things (however Sybase's locking strategy often makes it a worse choice - something that carries on into MS SQL). Apparently MS SQL 7 is quite quick as far as RDBMS's go - I'd focus on something other than speed though - MS SQL's T/SQL implementation is in the dark ages compared to Sybase's, and Oracle is just a whole lot more powerful, with it's wonderful package support and it's amazing stability.

They don't have that much power...

[stienman]

They cannot limit you from making your own benchmarks, publishing them, recommending them, etc.

However, if they can prove that you are either
1) Providing misinformation about their products
or
2) Slandering them or their products, etc

Then they will take it out on you. But if you detail your method of benchmark, sys configs, etc, and you aren't fudging the numbers, then they should be able to reproduce the exact same results if they wanted.

You are expected, as a professional, to know the products intimately. If MS has been known to provide misleading information, then you not only have a right but a responsability to find out for yourself whether their product holds up to their claims or not.

-Adam

Re:MS SQL

[Steven Pulito]

MS SQL is quite quick as far as RDBMS's go, too bad it isn't a RDBMS itself, which makes it an unacceptable choice for many applications. If one wanted to go with an Open Source solution as opposed to Oracle then they might try PostgreSQL [postgresql.org].

Re:MS SQL

[Malcontent]

Do you know of a document that compares Postgresql to MS SQL 7.0? I am looking for a features comparison as well as a speed comparison. I have read a bit of the manual for Postgresql and combed through their site a bit but I can't seem to find such a document.

PCMagazine article on this?

[Raindeer]

I am too lazy to go and look it up myself, but PCmagazine had an article on the different DBMS's and they wanted to publish Benchmarks. I belief Oracle forbade them to benchmark it. Microsoft was ok with it. But you really should check the article.

Enforceable

[zero-one]

Microsoft could end up looking very silly if they tried to enforce this. I don't think it would be a good idea for any software company to go to cort to argue about how good their software is.