| 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: Linux isn't cheaper | |
|
||
| Time: 01:36 EST/06:36 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
Microsoft on Wednesday released the latest in a series of studies it has commissioned that show Windows to be as cheap or cheaper than Linux as part of its "Get the Facts" campaign. The latest study, conducted by BearingPoint, found that even looking at only the "hard costs" of licensing and support, Windows Server 2003 was often cheaper than Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell/SUSE Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:08:30 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 5/27/2004 7:52:34 AM |
|
"Oh wait, Linux is God... right? I'm so confused"
Some people here seem to think Bill Gates is God! |
| #2 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 5/27/2004 9:40:34 AM |
|
I did my own test, thank you, on the exact same hardware. Here's what I did:
First, I formatted and installed Slackware 9.0, and installed IoZone (a filesystem benchmarking suite that is open source and has precompiled binaries for Linux and Windows.) Run the test. Then format the system, install Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition. Install Iozone. Run the test. Results: In every test, linux won for file system I/O as compared to Windows 2003. Whoa. Then I said, Ok, let's take a look at the desktop. Windows 2000 Pro versus SUSE 9.0. Windows 2000 preformed far better than SUSE 9 in the tests that I did. Why? Hell if I know. Then I said, Ok, let's do something on both OSes that people will do a lot of: CD Burning. Windows 2000 with Nero 6 Ultra. Not an issue at all. All tests and burns worked fine. SUSE 9 with the built in burning software (there are 2 that are installed): 80% failure rate on CD burning. Mostly coasters. What's the deal? Quality of the software. Wheras in the Windows world, people are paid to write the software and that is an incentive; in the OSS world people just do it for kicks and maybe some recognition--no real incentive to get it to work. That's the key. Accountability. Linux is great for FTP site, web site, and some things (not SAMBA, which is still a piece of crud), but for practically everything else Windows is the only way to go. Couple that with the fact that 58% of all recent site intrustions and defacements are running Linux (indicating that securing the box is harder on Linux than Windows) we see a problem. Has linux come a long way? Yep. Is it "there yet"? Nope. Not even close. There are some great things you can do with linux, and some things that you just can't. Oh, and as for "security," the Slackware box (default install) had more ports open to the world than Windows did. That is a bad thing to do. Seriously, thank heavens I was behind a firewall already. |
| #3 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 5/27/2004 12:08:55 PM |
|
"SUSE 9 with the built in burning software (there are 2 that are installed): 80% failure rate on CD burning. Mostly coasters."
Strange. i haven't had a coaster in years when burning in either windows or linux! "That's the key. Accountability. Linux is great for FTP site, web site, and some things..." What is the difference between burning software and webserver software on Linux in terms of accountability? If windows software is so great because the programmers have more incentive because they are being paid, why does this not apply for ftp or webserver software? Why then would you say linux is great for web or ftp serving? This post was edited by tgnb on Thursday, May 27, 2004 at 12:17. |
| #4 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 5/27/2004 12:25:56 PM |
|
"RedHat Linux AS - Standard Edition - 1499$ per year
SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 - 999$ I believe that if you stop paying, you don't get more than 1 year of security updates with Linux. Windows 2003 - Standard Edition - 999$ (with 5 CAL's) once. Windows 2003 - Web Edition - 399$ 10 years of security updates included with Windows." LOL first of all.. you "believe" wrong. Second of all you are comparing apples and oranges. Thirdly, wow.. a whole 5 users can connect to that standard edition server? Holy crap. thats great!. Oh and i'm glad you included any of the other costs in your comparison that are associated with running a server. Yeah. Throw out all those studies. Parkker's got the definite answer right here on Activewin. Look no further. If you are a CIO, all you need is parker's post to decide if Linux is for you. And if you decide to continue running on Windows, do it like Parkker. Install MS patches on your notebook and if after a reboot everything "seems" fine.. deploy it everywhere right away. Because you know, 0-day exploitz for windows are almost here. |
| #5 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 5/27/2004 5:55:05 PM |
|
If you are only buying a server for 5 users, why would you buy Red Hat's most expensive option?
Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES starts at $349. AS is intended for servers with up to 16 CPUs and 64 GBs of RAM... high-end, mission-critical systems... not a small 5 man office file server. |
| #6 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 5/27/2004 8:47:42 PM |
|
And, Parkker? As I said, why did you pick the most expensive option versus the cheapest option?
"Windows 2003 with 10 CAL's is only $1199. After 10 years it has still only cost you $1199." And it'll be a ten year old OS with crufty security updates. If you purchase the Linux every year, you aren't just getting service and security patches, but OS updates for 10 years. Make a valid comparison. |
| #7 By 7797 (63.76.44.81) at 5/28/2004 8:00:06 AM |
| Parkker likes to compare apples to organges and won't stop doing it even if you call him out on it a million times. Just as he did with you and me multiple times in this post he will completely ignore half of our post debunking him and make more ludicris comparisons based on his original ones. |
| #8 By 3339 (64.160.58.135) at 6/2/2004 5:53:42 PM |
|
Yes, tgnb, I, like Halcyon, enjoy it.
"Microsoft just announced that will support their product with 10 years of updates. " No sh1t, SECURITY updates, not feature updates... So when you say, you stop getting security updates from Red Hat, what you are forgetting is that you are also getting OS/feature updates. Microsoft is only providing security updates, not feature updates. So, yes, you get 10 years of uptodate Linux with security fixes or an expensive version of Windows that is crufty after ten years even if it has 10 years of thousands of security updates. Big deal. Do you really think MS is giving away free updates for all functionality for all OSes and apps? Ha, ha, ha!!! |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:08:30 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
