All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

MS Study: win2k cheaper than linux

(1/3) > >>

HPC GUY:
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.

xyle_one:

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.
--- End quote ---

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."
--- End quote ---

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:
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?

voidmain:
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 ]

Mr Smith:
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.  

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version