Study: Windows cheaper than Linux

[wyvrn]

Link

Selected quotes:

The report argued that Linux costs more because more network administrators are needed to maintain a Linux system.

For example, in order to support 100 full-time users over a five year period on a networking server, Linux-based systems cost $13,263 versus $11,787 for Microsoft, the IDC study said.

Similar differences emerged for file, printing and security servers, but for Web servers, which host and manage Internet sites, Microsoft systems cost $32,305 while Linux systems cost $30,600, the study showed.

Sources close to the company have confirmed the authenticity of a memo posted recently to the Internet that made an exhaustive study of the challenge posed by open-source software, although Houston and other Microsoft officials have declined to comment on the matter.

The document posted on the Open Source Initiative Web site (www.opensource.org) said open source software had reached "commercial quality" and that such free software "poses a direct, short-term revenue and platform threat to Microsoft, particularly in the server space."

Looks like the battle between MS and *nix is gearing up. I wonder how much FUD we will see from both sides as things get going really good Right now, I look at it as Intel vs. AMD. It's good for consumers and businesses to have two viable choices. Finally, it looks like MS may have some serious competition and might lose their *functional* monopoly on the OS market. By that I mean I don't care whether MS became a monopoly on purpose or not, they still are one. I also think MS has a great platform in Windows 2000 and .NET and will continue to give solid value over comparable *nix systems. I think we will see a long, fun battle between MS and the open source community.

 

[Bignate603]

Was microsoft involved in that study via funding or anything? I'm not saying it's invalid, just once and a while these studys have a sort of tilt if one side funds them.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Microsoft's got Palladium.

I think that trumps all FUD wars for years to come.

- M4H

 

[wyvrn]

The study was sponsored by Microsoft. Read the article

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Was microsoft involved in that study via funding or anything? I'm not saying it's invalid, just once and a while these studys have a sort of tilt if one side funds them.

 

[vi edit]

Running what software? 100 CALs for Win2k server is upwards of $3,000. Not counting the cost of Win2k server, or any of the cost of the OS's on the work stations. Put in Exchange server and you are looking at another $3000 in CALs plus the cost of the exchange server software. Figure in another $1500-$3000 for virus scanning solutions, another $30,000 in CALs for office professional and I fail to see how it is cheaper?

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire
Microsoft's got Palladium.

I think that trumps all FUD wars for years to come.

- M4H

Palladium is a Intel Initiative not a Microsoft one.

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Was microsoft involved in that study via funding or anything? I'm not saying it's invalid, just once and a while these studys have a sort of tilt if one side funds them.

some people on this board wouldnt believe it if slashdot did a study and results came up favorable for microsoft.

 

[lowtech1]

I don?t know what MS yes men trying to construe here, but how can TCO on Windows cost lest than Linux?

Does this also work with OpenOffice vs. MS-Office, Qmail/Postfix vs. MS-Exchange, and PostgreSQL/Firebird vs. MS-SQL?

It is a funny thing that I don?t hear MS pouting that the TCO of owning Apache or Mozilla/Netscape is detrimental to a company finance compare to IIS or IE.

The Register: Ballmer 'fesses up to Linux/Windows cost FUD

 

[Scarpozzi]

This totally depends on what you're talking about... End user systems might benefit from running Microsoft because they'll have an OEM copy of OS and software. Linux, while free, will definitely stump the average user since it's so different from Microsoft's structure.

HOWEVER, if you're talking about server applications Linux will always be cheaper than Microsoft. That's the market that Microsoft is really slamming these days. Server Licenses and CALs can get pricey when you're trying to supply users with Active Directory logins or Terminal Services... Linux is closer than ever to having a decent desktop in Red Hat 8. It's going to continue to improve and eventually Microsoft will fall.

 

[Nemesis77]

THis study is a fraud, plain and simple. Think about it: this study compared Linux to W2K. Here's what's interesting:

For example, in order to support 100 full-time users over a five year period on a networking server, Linux-based systems cost $13,263 versus $11,787 for Microsoft, the IDC study said.

Hmmmm.... 2002 - 5 = 1997. W2K was released in 2000, how can they determine that Windows "is cheaper over a five year period", since the OS they are comparing Linux to wasn't even released? Answer: they can't, they are pulling their numbers from their ass.

And I find this really funny:

The report argued that Linux costs more because more network administrators are needed to maintain a Linux system.

LOL! In real life, it seems more that you need an army of admins for Windows, whereas Linux can work with far less administration!

EDIT: and the fact that the study was sponsored by Microsoft doesn't actually improve the credibility of this study....

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

some people on this board wouldnt believe it if slashdot did a study and results came up favorable for microsoft.

Now that's just crazy talk. Slashdot could never endorse anything Microsoft-related.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Was microsoft involved in that study via funding or anything? I'm not saying it's invalid, just once and a while these studys have a sort of tilt if one side funds them.

some people on this board wouldnt believe it if slashdot did a study and results came up favorable for microsoft.

I guess The Register is sponsored by Al Qaida and just made the story about Ballmer lowtech linked to up eh? It matters a lot whether an independant expert group investigated something, or just a bunch of losers who is on the paycheck of either side.

 

[wyvrn]

We know you love MS and Windows, Ameesh. But since this study was sponsored by MS, even you would have to admit it's probably biased towards MS products.

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: Bignate603
Was microsoft involved in that study via funding or anything? I'm not saying it's invalid, just once and a while these studys have a sort of tilt if one side funds them.

some people on this board wouldnt believe it if slashdot did a study and results came up favorable for microsoft.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Ameesh
Palladium is a Intel Initiative not a Microsoft one.

Wrong. Check out this quotation from Supersite for Windows:

But future Windows versions promise to be even more exciting. The next major desktop Windows release, code-named Longhorn, is due in 2005 and will include Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing (Palladium) architectural changes...

Of course, if you believe just what you read on that site, you'd think that Palladium is the best thing since sliced bread. However, the TCPA / Palladium FAQ reveals the truth.

 

[lowtech1]

I wouldn't worry about the TCPA as just yeat because there are such thing as vmware, win4lin, and last but not least wine

 

[Descartes]

I could see Windows being (vastly) cheaper than linux if you were to deploy linux on every desktop in your enterprise; however, not so much as a server platform. Can you imagine the support costs of supporting an enterprise of end-users with linux on their desktop? *shudder*

I really see no problem with them funding studies; as they do this often as does everyone else attempting to prove their product. Microsoft releases reference implementations for new technologies like .NET in an attempt to show it's ostensible superiority over competing platforms (e.g. J2EE). Usually, at least in the aforementioned context, it's more truth than FUD. Sun does the same, as does Oracle, etc.. Sun isn't going to push a press release saying, "We just spent millions on research and the results show Microsoft has a superior product!"

That said, I've spent more time dealing with issues related to Windows (both from a developer and administrative standpoint) than I care to acknowledge. *nix (especially SCO) usually offers a bigger headache for me up front, but once it works.... it works. I've had many Windows boxen (servers) that can run solid for weeks, then they spontaneously develop problems. Of course, it's often the fault of third-party drivers, services, etc...

 

[lowtech1]

Putting TCO Studies In Their Place: Looking At the Win2000/Linux Report

In the studys results, IDC found that in four of the five workload areas, Linux was "marginally more expensive than Windows 2000." Most of the added expense, Kusnetzky said, comes from staffing and training costs for Linux applications. In most IT organizations, Kusnetzky stated, hardware and software costs, where Linux traditionally shines, comprises less than 35% of the organizations IT costs. Staff costs, however, can be 50-70% of the total IT costs. If this IDC model is fact, then it would explain why Linuxs traditional strengths are outweighed by IDC's surveyed staffing cost figures.

As it turned out, in network service workloads, Linux was just 11% more expensive, and in the area of security, 22% more expensive. In Web services, Linux was actually 6% less expensive.

Based on earlier trends, "I was expecting Linux to be orders of magnitude more expensive," Kusnetzky said. That it wasn't, he added, "indicates that the Linux and Open Source community has done an excellent job putting tools together."

The survey's timing is also significant, Kusnetzky said. The survey was done last summer, before the advent of UnitedLinux and Red Hat Advanced Server. Done today, one wonders how the survey results would have differed.

I have to agreed that the TCO is more if you goes with open source, but once the training is compleately roll over from MS to Open Source then the return start to show. This was the main caveat that I have to explain to my employers & convince them that we will see a return in the long run. It is a commitment to go open source & not a fly by night trial & error to get it to work.

As been said as in many other treads that have been beaten to death is that the learning curve is a little steeper in Linux compare to a windows user to learn a new Windows interface due to unfamiliarity. But, once the skill is master in Linux it is just as easy to navigate in Linux & keep up, as one would be in Windows.

 

[FoBoT]

its BS

Operating a server based on Linux free software ends up costing businesses more than Windows server software, the study, commissioned by the software giant and released by IDC, said.

Personnel costs involved in the upkeep of Linux-based servers, which manage networks of computers, far outweigh the benefits of being able to obtain the software for free or at lower costs, the report from technology researcher IDC said.

the article says "the study, commissioned by the software giant" , so its a study bought and paid for by MS == biased == BS

 

[Zebo]

And prostitutes are cheaper than wives, what else is new?

 

[LAUST]

THANKYOU wyvrn THANKYOU!!!!

Now I can rest my case with a few Zealots here at work

 

[kazeakuma]

Hehehe, I'm sure if a few of the board members got together to do an informal survey it would paint a different picture. I can think of no less than 10 sites (small to medium businesses) running linux servers that don't employ an administrator. They just get someone in every so often for some patching and upgrading. MS systems however, we visit most of them regularly.

 

[lowtech1]

1.3% versus 3%

This is the most important pair of numbers -- and indeed the most important piece of information -- in this entire article: 1.3% and 3%.

Harold A. Schomaker, IT Manager/CIO for the City of Largo, says Largo spends a total of 1.3% of its gross budget on IT. This includes hardware, software, salaries, and incidental expenses. He says the typical small city spends over 3% of its budget on IT, with some approaching 4%. "Between 3% and 4% is about right," he says, "with most closer to 3%."

He is adamant that these are true, quotable figures. We ask several times, since this sort of disparity is far from what we are seeing in recent (Microsoft-sponsored) Linux vs Windows TCO studies.

Don't forget, Harold isn't getting paid by anyone except Largo taxpayers, and his job is to keep their IT expenses as low as he can while providing ever-better IT services to the city employees who use them to do their jobs. In light of this, Harold's comparative cost figures are probably at least as trustworthy as anyone's -- and lots more trustworthy than some.

Largo loves Linux more than ever.

An excellent read describing how the City of Largo save money using Linux thin clients. And, it is happened to be the same thinking process that I have been doing here for the last 9 months.

3 years ago I worked at a research centre that had over 200 Sun thin client, and soon after I left the job I was looking for way to built inexpensive terminal in Windows & Linux.

What I have learn is that thin client can be use in wimpy 386 boxes with as little as 8 megs of ram utilizing floppies or cdrom boot. And, I'm now at the current job and has built 4 thin clients from our dead computers that happily running on Pentium 233mhz with 32 & 64 megs of ram that serve our purposes perfectly. (Many more terminals that are around 333-450mhz, and most dead desktop is replace with a thin client except for the bosses computers)

For the last 9 months that I have been in my current position we only had purchases 5 new laptops, 3 desktops for the bosses, and 8 new monitors. The hardware upgrade that we are currently going through around here has dropped drastically, because the hardware consumptions have dropped to about 1/2 of the regular yearly expense.

The next upgrade was going to be schedule for new hardware & software next fall, but this time I have manage to convince the management that our current hardware will last at least another 2 or 3 years with regular maintenance. The only thing that will need an upgrade is OpenOffice & a few StarOffice to all clients? computers to standardizes our in house software usage. Currently we have mostly Office 97, some Office 2000, and some Open Office testers.

The saving that I'm currently trying to produce for my company is a far cry from what the sysadmin at Largo, but in time I'll find more ways to save this company money by utilizing more open source software.

 

[KeyserSoze]

Is it all about money ONLY???

The good things I've heard about Linux were due to SECURITY. Why is it just coming down to Money right now? I GUESS Windows would be cheaper to administer, for the sole fact that they Network Admins are more in abundance for Windows. (That's a TOTAL GUESS on my part too.)

But my point is, wouldn't a company pay a little bit more for a SECURE Network than a cheaper one? So the whole "Which is cheaper thing", shouldn't really be THAT big of an issue.


I dunno, I'm talking out of my A$$.



KeyserSoze

 

[ScottyB]

What's peoples' problems with Windows? If you don't like they damn producty don't use it. You guys act as if was pure evil like its the Devil or President Bush.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
What's peoples' problems with Windows? If you don't like they damn producty don't use it. You guys act as if was pure evil like its the Devil or President Bush.

Windows is insecure and expensive (despite Microsoft's claims). Microsoft's business tactics also don't sit well with some of us. That is why, although I am currently using Windows for some things, I am about to replace the last few pieces of Linux-incompatible hardware in my network and move all of my systems to Linux exclusively.