| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper to Run Than Linux | |
|
||
| Time: 08:49 EST/13:49 GMT | News Source: Reuters | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O , fearful of being undercut in the market for server software by free offerings based on Linux, on Monday released the results of a sponsored study that concludes Windows 2000 is generally cheaper for businesses to run and support. 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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:09:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/3/2002 10:12:34 AM |
| lol @ bas - Yes this study is 100% objective and 100% accurate and the be-all-end-all. Anyone who is saving money in the long run by running Linux is obviously a sham and a liar. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/3/2002 10:29:53 AM |
|
Well it makes sense...
With Windows 2000 you need to hire an administrator. With Linux you need to hire an administrator and a developer. |
| #3 By 931 (67.35.55.249) at 12/3/2002 11:58:54 AM |
|
"Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper to Run Than Linux "
Well duh! Didn't we already know this? (for the most part anyway) |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/3/2002 12:22:10 PM |
|
yadda yadda yadda terms of service blah blah blah This post was edited by tgnb on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at 21:46. |
| #5 By 7797 (63.76.44.252) at 12/3/2002 12:55:55 PM |
|
bluej: "How do you calculate TCO?"
It's not easily calculated. Thats why studies are done. And depending on who's doing the study, the outcome can be completely different. Just because the study is sponsored by MS doesn't make it bad either. Actually its a good thing that MS is willing to figure out how their TCO compares to that of other OS's. But that doesn't mean the result of this study are any more correct than those conducted by others who got completely different results. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/3/2002 1:40:04 PM |
|
tgnb - Of course it's bs, IBM paid for it.
RichardJC - The Unix way of doing file/print services is so backasswards, the only way it would ever shine is if there was no competition. So you're right on that one point. |
| #7 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/3/2002 3:32:11 PM |
|
IBM study:
- Linux is very cheap while in a web farm serving static web content IDC Study: - Windows is cheaper in the long run in 5 key areas of a server (web, file, print, some other stuff which I forget) -d |
| #8 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 4:18:16 PM |
|
IDC study:
even though we know the standard, average, and accepted upgrade cycle is 3 years--in fact, MS is religious about it and will force you to upgrade their software if you agree to their licensing; then you'll probably face substantial hardware and software costs--but we'll use 5 years because we know who's paying us and that the math doesn't work out. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/3/2002 4:27:00 PM |
| RichardJC - I was primarily referring to kludges like NFS and LPD. If CUPS now provides a way of sharing printers, that would be a welcome addition. |
| #10 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 8:42:54 PM |
|
Parker, the new licensing agreements guarantee those who sign on for the upgrade program new software before the end of the three year cycle. This was the only way to demonstrate any cost savings at all--and this only for a fraction of the large enterprises and small, small businesses. If it is inherent to their business logic and if it is the only rationale for the licensing program, whether or not you actually do upgrade the computers is irrelevent. If you are participating in the licensing program, the cost of a three year cycle is FORCED on you. Cost is the only element that I am examining.
I am not questioning how long support is offered for, nor did I claim that other alternatives have longer support cycles, nor did I claim other OSes have existed longer (what the hell is the relevance of your whole digression) so there is nothing for me to prove. Boy, really, what is your point. Because you only have known about Linux for two years that mandates a two year upgrade cycle?!! What? You can go off on my use of the word "force", but you think you have a legitimate argument that the life cycle of linux is 2 years? Uh, huh. This post was edited by sodajerk on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at 20:44. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 158 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:09:27 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
