Windows cheaper than Linux, says Microsoft

[slave]

http://www.vnunet.com/News/1136574

[HibbeeBoy]

What a vague and ambiguous piece of shite.

[pkd_lives]

Yeah Yeah Yeah.. I read this article. It's more opinion being passed as fact. If it is an opinion that is fine but until evidence is provided, then NO it's just opinion and as Ballmer is involved I believe it's BS because I have never heard that man back up a statement such as this with cold hard evidence.

Yeah they sampled 12 companies - what a division of M$, or something, maybe Dell helped out or Intel (you know vested interest), what companies, where and did they take into account the requirement to buy high end equipment to run the software of M$, what businesses and what technologies - the details of argument are missing.

I have yet to see evidence of M$ being cheaper TCO, after all my real life experience brings the lie to that article - it's one of many factors in my conversion away from what I now see as their incompetence.

[hm_murdock]

how can Windows cost less?

how can something you pay for by subscription be cheaper than something that COSTS YOU NOTHING?

Linux installs faster, configures once and then just runs, doesn't need to have a hotfix, security patch, or service pack installed every week. It doesn't have to be activated. It doesn't have to have a team of 500 overpaid MCSEs hovering over it night and day to make sure it doesn't fall into the shitter.

<sarcasm>Yeah. Windows is better and cheaper than that more reliable stuff that is free.</sarcasm>

[foobar]

J-James, I think that if a (legal) copy of XP would be cheaper than downloading Linux, it would be about -299 euros cheaper  

[preacher]

Perhaps they did a comparison test of running Red Hat's advanced server, versus MS Windows 2000 advanced server. The Red Hat server costs $2499, while Windows 2000 advanced server is only $1000.

http://www.redhat.com/software/advancedserver/

Then look at the cost of training for Red Hat Linux. If they had to send each one of their techs to train at Red Hat's Premier RHCE courses, the total is $7373 per person. In this case, it would cost more than MCSE certification does at my old junior college.

http://www.redhat.com/training/rhce/courses/index.html

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]

[hm_murdock]

good point! the bad thing is, the suits would want to *buy* RH Advanced, 'cos they think you gotta waste money to make money. And then you waste the money you make... how do you really make money in business?

Oh yeah... you extort it from the middle and lower classes.

[beltorak0]

check this paper out.  it's a review of the TCO between linux and windows.  comes witha  complete breakdown of assumptions.  from cybersource in australia.
pdf version
html version

notice they even priced the Unix IT staff at a higher salary....

-t.

[SpeeDFreaK]

"Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle."

Even this is a stretch, but he may be right. Windows is cheaper over it's lifecycle. BUT, the key thing there is Windows has a lifecycle. Which means it will eventually be replaced, costing more money. I don't think that linux has a "total lifecycle" such as that, since it isn't required to be replaced every X years.  So you might be spending X for Windows 2000, then when you're forced to upgrade to XP you're paying X^1.5, longhorn ends up costing X^2, then whatever after that just adds up.

[lazygamer]

Ok but imagine this. Lazy CO. can get sued by Microsoft for using $30 pirated versions of their $1000 XP server. Lazy CO. can use a $30 pirated(term kept for coherency) version of the $2000 Redhat advanced server, and will NEVER EVER have legal repricussions, even if Lazy CO. gets really big.

[RudeCat7]

It's just too funny to see...

m$= $282,000.00     Linux=$79.00

...And yes, let's talk life cycle, that is every 4 years right?

I can't believe m$ even tries to pull this stunt off...  

[mobrien_12]

This whole TCO argument of MS has always been fishy.  Ok.. what is to make Windows cheaper to operate?

It's stability?  The fact that it can spontaneously break and need a complete reinstall?  The fact that the servers have to be rebooted every so often?  The fact that you can't clone XP installs (even if you own the correct number of licences) for corporate deployment?  The fact that MS has made it perfectly clear that they will hack their newer software so that it won't run on older versions of windows, requiring you to perform time consuming os "upgrades?"


Some claim that Windows is supposedly easier and more intuitive.. well if it's so easy then why does the MSCE program exist?

[Doctor V]

Hey!  TCO for Linux is $0.  Case closed.  Ballmer is full of BS.  Certification training is not required is it.  And even if it is.  Once an employee completes the training once, its done.  No more costs at all.  The software is free.  Oh and also, I bet when M$ calculated TCO they didn't even take down time into account, now did they.  Some comapnys lose alot of money for just a minute of downtime.  I'm sure most companys that are big enough to need RH advanced server would fall into this category.

V

[Fett101]

What's cheaper then Linux? Your mom.

Sorry. It just seemed an obvious post...

[enigma]

quote:Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1136574

I think i can sum all our thoughts into one little phrase....

<funny asian-speaking-english voice>"SHUT UP STUPID REDNECK!"</funny asian-speaking-english voice>