Author Topic: MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux  (Read 1606 times)

HPC GUY

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 275
  • Kudos: 101
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« on: 4 December 2002, 23:54 »
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-975848.html

Key term of the article, MS FUNDED STUDY.
when is this shit gonna stop? why can they just be a good fucking sport and accept competitive business. its like when gates bought out compuhyperglobalmeganet from homer, "ok boys, buy him out." he just rather not compete, just dominate.
"if i destroyed you, i would only be perpetuating your legacy" - Me

xyle_one

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,213
  • Kudos: 135
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #1 on: 5 December 2002, 00:52 »
quote:
The biggest difference was in security servers, where Linux systems cost $91,000 over five years and Windows systems cost $70,000, IDC said. Next came print jobs, where a Linux server cost $107,000 over five years and a Windows server cost $87,000. In file sharing, Linux cost $114,000 to Windows' $99,000. In Web site jobs, Linux was less expensive at $31,000 to Windows' $32,000.

how, exactly, does this work?? it would cost me $91,000 to run a linux server, compared to $70,000 for a windows system. do they include the cost of the windows/microsoft licenses, because you have to pay yearly for that shit. so add that to the price. i dont get it. is it because finding someone who could administer a linux system is not as easy as finding someone to administer a windows system? (because anybody can do that  ;)  )therefore making a linux admin more expensive?
 
quote:
"We believe these higher costs are...related to the relative immaturity of the management tools available today for Linux systems," IDC said. Administrators, too, will become more adept. "Over time, the gap in support costs between Linux and Windows will contract."

ohh. relative immaturity of the management tools available today for Linux systems??? how would that affect the total cost of operation? from what i understand, the tools available in linux to administer a system far exceed any available to windows. and most are free.
fucking microsoft.

distortion

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 49
  • Kudos: 0
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #2 on: 5 December 2002, 02:30 »
i like how they didn't say where they were pulling all of these numbers from. 91 grand? where did they get that? instead they just use abstract terms like total cost of ownership.

and how did linux pressure sun into selling unix based systems?
Dr kelso; Didn't you get my memo about looking professional, and whereing your lab coat at all times?

Dr. Cox; well you know what? i did...and i threw it away. But then i didn't feel like that was a strong enough gesture so i erected a life like figure of you out of straw, put my lab coat on it, put your memo in the pocket, and invited all the local neighborhood children to light it on fire and beat it with sticks!

heard it on Scrubs, quite possibly the funniest show on tv


voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #3 on: 5 December 2002, 03:31 »
What about this one:

http://www.ibm.com/linux/RFG-LinuxTCO-vFINAL-Jul2002.pdf

Oh, how could this be? Two different studies by two different vendors coming to two completely different conclusions? I'm so confused! It's interesting that the IBM study has Linux coming out on top. Imagine how much one could save if they didn't use either company's bogus stats and just used Linux on your own. Wow, now there's a concept, an IT person thinking for himself rather than being spoon fed marketing data.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

Mr Smith

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
  • Kudos: 0
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #4 on: 5 December 2002, 07:20 »
But void main, dont you know these companies only have our best interests in heart? And if the TV Ads say it, it must be so.  
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill

beltorak0

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Kudos: 0
    • http://www.angelfire.com/realm/beltorak
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #5 on: 5 December 2002, 07:47 »
how about this one?
Another TCO Comparison (PDF)


They place Linux admin salaries at 10% more than windows; the ibm one placed linux admin sals at $12,000 ??? that's below the poverty line....

But linux still costs 24% less over three years; mostly due to the lump sum payment of $80 for the OS and included/freely-available programs... as well as no need for virus software and a few other windows necessities.  It has a very complete breakdown of prices.  Of course, they sell linux support too, but I think those numbers are a little closer to the mark, and it's very complete so you can check it out for yourself.

Anyway;

-t.

<< to the tune of SPAM SPAM >>
FUD FUD FUD FUD
  FUD FUD FUD FUD
    FUD FUDFUUUUUUD
from Attrition.Org
 
quote:
Like many times before, Microsoft is re-inventing the wheel and opting for something other than round.

-t.


voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #6 on: 5 December 2002, 08:25 »
quote:
Originally posted by beltorak0:

They place Linux admin salaries at 10% more than windows; the ibm one placed linux admin sals at $12,000 ??? that's below the poverty line....
[/b]


No they didn't. They said the Linux admin salary was $71,800 and the Windows admin salary at $68,500. They actually say Linux admins need to be paid more (and they should, after all they are smarter). Now where the difference comes in is the Linux admins can administer 44 Linux servers compared to only 10 Windows servers per Windows admin (and my experiences tell me this is about right). That works out to only $1,600 per server for Linux admin salary compared to $6,850 per server for the Windows admin, or $12,010 per unit for Linux and $52,060 per unit for Windows for admin salary costs. See the PDF for more explanations. I think it's actually pretty accurate from my experience in both worlds.

[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]

Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

lazygamer

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 1,146
  • Kudos: 0
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #7 on: 5 December 2002, 21:25 »
Im confused. How the hell could Linux come even remotely close to Windows for price? Don't windows have those licenses that require you to pay once for each computer you use the software on? Can't you just by ONE lowcost 3rd party copy of Redhat advanced server and install it on all computers? Who needs support, you got those admins to do it for you.
For every hot Lesbian you see in a porno video, there is a fat, butch-like, or just downright ugly lesbian beeyotch marching in a gay pride parade, or bitching about same sex marriages. -Lazygamer on homosexuality

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #8 on: 5 December 2002, 21:42 »
i got an email from somebody in my linux user group list last week, and at the bottom he had put 'linux is only free if you put no value on your time'. I am sure it's a famous quote from somewhere, but i don't know where.

Anyway, i think that and only that is the impetus for this microsoft attempt at pulling an entire market study out of their collective asses and sticking it up on the web.
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

voidmain

  • VIP
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,605
  • Kudos: 184
    • http://voidmain.is-a-geek.net/
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #9 on: 5 December 2002, 22:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
i got an email from somebody in my linux user group list last week, and at the bottom he had put 'linux is only free if you put no value on your time'. I am sure it's a famous quote from somewhere, but i don't know where.



Zombie used to use that line all the time. In fact it may have even been part of his tag line. Of course I am sure he heard it somewhere else. After all, windows users are followers, not leaders.
Someone please remove this account. Thanks...

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #10 on: 5 December 2002, 23:03 »
they emulate, they don't innovate!  :D

however that line is true, and i don't think that it in any way deprecates linux to admit it. Once the initial investment in knowledge has been made, you can reap the profits of that investment for the rest of your life.
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism

Crunchy(Cracked)Butter

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 329
  • Kudos: 125
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #11 on: 5 December 2002, 23:10 »
Next week we will have another article about how the X-Box outsells the PS2 and its 50% cheaper!

Calum

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,812
  • Kudos: 1000
    • Calum Carlyle's music
MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux
« Reply #12 on: 5 December 2002, 23:11 »
and how microsoft lookout is a lot more secure (and inexpensive) than evolution...
visit these websites and make yourself happy forever:
It's my music! | My music on MySpace | Integrational Polytheism