| 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 |
 |
Framing the discussion: Linux vs. Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Chris Hedlund | ||
|
Microsoft seems to realize that many people take its sponsored studies with a grain of salt. So, why would the folks in Redmond — or any other vendor, for that matter — go to the trouble to finance a study that they know will be dismissed as biased? Microsoft knows that it’s unlikely that the majority of IT professionals will take the results at face value, once they learn that a study has been sponsored by the vendor. But, by releasing the study anyway, Microsoft has a chance at framing the discussion. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:46:19 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/19/2005 8:58:48 AM |
| Look in your encyclopedia on Goering, Hermann - Big Lie. If you tell the same whopper often enough, eventually everyone believes you. MS doesn't care about the techs that know they're full of shit. They care about the 90% of PHBs out there that swallow everythin gthey like it came down with Moses form the Mount. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/19/2005 10:48:58 AM |
|
I don't think that's the case here. These studies aren't lies. Everybody knows that the way these studies work is to evaluate a scenario where the product comes off as looking good.
Therefore, these studies are worthwhile if the scenario studies is that which takes place at your company. That's the way the industry works. When we're looking at buying products we always read the case studies provided by the vendor because they do help in understanding how they view their own product. The only people who are going to dismiss studies out of hand as biased are zealots... but since zealots won't listen to reason or logic anyway, it wouldn't matter what you said to them... if it doesn't conform with their distorted world view they are going to dismiss it out of hand. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/19/2005 11:02:48 AM |
|
#2: I have yet to see one of these MS 'studies' actually stand up to scrutiny, as they usually have little tricks in them that always slant in favour of MS. If it's not a fair study then it's worthless and meaningless, and that's why they are now dismissed out of hand. If their previous studies hadn't proved to be loaded, then there wouldn't be as much skepticism now.
I don't see many other companies churning out a steady stream of self-serving, skewed studies. I understand that it's not in MS' best interests to talk about the things that are bad about their products or corporate culture, however it's like trying to convince everyone to ignore the elephant in the corner. Only the willfully blind don't see it. |
| #4 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/19/2005 12:08:53 PM |
|
#4 - You clearly are giving way to much credence to slashdot Linux zealots. I think if you sit back and look at this all from a truly critical perspective, you'll understand.
Only the willfully blind refuse to see. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/19/2005 1:35:29 PM |
|
#5: Google is still around; use it.
#6: I will grant you that MS has definately made strides and are improved over where they were a few years ago. And yes, you can thank Linux for that. If it wasn't for something that MS perceived as a threat to their monopoly, they would happily sit back and collect large sums for doing nothing. For a case in point, see Internet Explorer after Netscape got squeezed out by illegal abuse of monopoly. Speaking of monopolies, I see that every site on the web had the story last week about MS having to pay off Gateway for more of MS' usual anti-competitive actions. Well, every site except ActiveWin of course. #7: what are you talking about??? |
| #6 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/19/2005 3:00:58 PM |
|
#9: agreed, but see my post in the other thread.
#10: well, the US Justice Dept saw things a little differently than you do. They saw it as an illegal abuse of monopoly power by bundling a product (Netscape was only free for personal/academic use) for free with the OS to thwart a competitor. They were found guilty of this by the US Government. While Netscape was doing well with their <1.0 versions, IE didn't become usable until 3.0 (or was it 3.02, I don't remember). So spare me the funky history in your head. |
| #7 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 4/19/2005 3:45:00 PM |
|
#11 - Umm, the decision was overturned on appeal. The browser claim wasn't supported by evidence... However they did uphold the claim of aggressive contract abuse.
Why are you here? You clearly have the slashdot ideology... wouldn't you be happier over there where everybody hates microsoft? You can pat yourself on the back for being so clever and never having to learn anything new. |
| #8 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 4/19/2005 3:46:31 PM |
|
#11: That same US DoJ also razed a compound in Texas, killing most of the men, women, and children inside because they thought there were some guns in there.
That same US DoJ defied court orders and had marshals seize a boy and send him to the wolves -- I mean Communist Cuba. That same US DoJ's refused to recuse itself despite terrible conflicts of interest and ended up finding that there was no problem that the President sold military secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, perjured himself during Grand Jury testimony, or conducted campaign and fundraising efforts from the White House. I'm not terribly impressed that their Witch Hunt against Microsoft about IE was of the highest judicial standards. There are probably better arguments against MSFT, I would suggest you not go down this route. |
| #9 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 4/19/2005 4:37:05 PM |
|
Well, quux, I am all ears concerning the court (not courts) who rendered the decision. Might you be refering to the judge that in court derided the defendendts - calling them names? The same individual that openly admitted that he knew nothing about technology much less computers? Or are you referring to the judge that denigrated the defendants to the press BEFORE his judgement was rendered (that he was speaking to them at all was unethical to say the least)? Or maybe you are referring to the judge that was reprimanded by the appellate court for his action throughout the case?
Now, quux, this was a few years ago and my memory maybe fuzzy, but hey, enlighten us on how you think what Microsoft got was anything in the realm of a fair trial? |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/19/2005 4:58:27 PM |
|
#12: I still use Windows every day and need to keep up on happenings within the industry. Although the news on ActiveWIn can be had anywhere (since everyone pimps everyone else in a massive news circle-jerk), I've been coming here for a few years out of habit. Plus, I LOVE to tweak the Gates Grovellers. I do read /., as well as Ars Technica, BetaNews, Bink, Groklaw, SecurityFocus... I could go on. Do you want my RSS feed list?
#13: what did Nomad say in that old Star Trek episode? "Non sequiter. Your facts are unco-ordinated." #15: if I remember correctly (and no, I'm not going to look it up), the judge was getting mightily pissed because of the MS gang's shifty answers, "lost" emails, etc. Yes, he was a knucklehead for going public, but that doesn't automatically mean he was out to get them. |
| #11 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/19/2005 8:44:46 PM |
|
You know it's amazing. Just when I think Latch and the other Linux zealots are too much to bear. Out comes daz with his wingnut conspiracy theories.
Just for the record, I'd like it to be known that I am distancing myself from the psychologically unstable whackadoodle theories on government that daz perpetrates here. I don't think it is fair to have my rationale pro-capitalism view associated with his wingnut anti-Rule of Law activism. Thank you. |
| #12 By 135 (24.163.245.167) at 4/19/2005 8:47:16 PM |
| quux - Agreed with everything you wrote in #17. That is an accurate interpretation of what happened. |
| #13 By 7754 (65.27.90.2) at 4/20/2005 12:52:38 AM |
|
OpenHeaded, re: $299 sans-monitor special: this week Dell Small Business has the Dimension 3000 P4-2.8GHz Desktop w/ 17" LCD & free printer for $349 after $100MIR (and you can get the 2 year warranty for free as well). You're totally correct at least on one aspect--it's awfully hard to find that kind of value elsewhere. It also makes it very hard to justify updating older hardware--or even just to keep it!
But Quux is right about FreeDOS--I really doubt anyone is buying the machine with the intent to use it as their OS. However, I don't think the assumption can be made automatically that Linux would be have a better TCO as a thin-client than these new Windows XP SKUs. If again you consider that the Dell machines cost less with Windows than with essentially no OS, that coupled with the fact that these new versions may come pre-configured to essentially plug-and-play in a terminal server environment, the TCO numbers could easily tip in Microsoft's favor. Conceivably these machines could arrive at a branch office direct from Dell, and the users would simply have to plug them into the network. The DIY approach would quickly cost more. I think you'd have to have somebody like Novell (with an OEM) or Sun step forward with pre-configured Linux boxes for that scenario to have comparable TCO numbers. This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 01:04. |
| #14 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/20/2005 1:04:43 AM |
|
#22, Dead on... I've bought two loaded Dell 6600's for a client with a no-OS option. It took weeks to get the systems delivered and there was zero sense of urgency attached to any delivery. Despite being heavy on drives and registered memory, there was no support for the sale - I spec'd the systems for the client's needs and paid cash.
That's one side and Dell was much less interested in selling under those terms. The client wanted to run RH AS 3.x [was the new 3U build at that time]. Their intention was to use Oracle 9i for an appliction they had built - no go... It took them weeks to re-configure a Linuces specific build of 10g and we hunted for days for required packages and still many more days to get them all working properly "BEFORE" 10g could be loaded and that part of the configuration could begin. The whole process took weeks and opposite some exceptionally experienced people who grew up with these OS'es [30+ years with Unices]. Very costly! In that same period four complete networks went in with Windows Servers at their cores - same people - different experiences. Guess which projects were profitable and which carried which? Without it even being a contest, the Windows centric work covered the costs of the OSS work manyfold. Six (6) Windows Servers of different types and more than 150 clients in the same amount of time and same people. As the owner, chief builder and bill payer, I can tell you from any perspective you wish, OSS is no bargain for any one. Oh, and BTW, we hand built all the servers and workstations ourselves - The client with OSS of course had the Dell's. The costs for the "free" OS'es on the Dell's is more than 3,400 per year for RH AS! The price for Windows Server 2003 - under 800.00 for life! The mix of packages in most cases is so unproven that the client, despite repeated warnings, will not patch - they simply are afraid it will break the OSS based systems! even with RHN supported packages! Forget the editorial folks. Forget the hype, any one of you is welcome to come see with your very own eyes, just how bad the OSS reality is. I've had to watch dear friends eat the results despite the best developers, the best equipment and the best distro's out there - millions is cash and years of waste are the result. Right next to that is a stunning example of how any one can build not only solutions on Microsoft's platform, but several successful businesses that fueled themselves! No one, no pundit will ever be able to tell me differently - I did both and know what it costs and believe me, watching friends fire great peolple because they are broke is a sad thing to see! I firmly believe that any person holding out that OSS is a good thing never had to fund it, or support people they care about on it as they funded it and lost their backsides. MS may have its critics, but they do and without question, have a platform that one can build on! |
| #15 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/20/2005 4:35:02 AM |
|
As Mr. Gates has so often said, "The costs of hardware are becoming irrelevant."
He is right, again - as a percentage of not just the total investment, but the total return, hardware is irrelevant. The comparison does not stop at the desktop, or server, but also now extends to the perimeter and edge of networks, which are increasingly well integrated to the SW running on servers and local and remote clients. In this larger context, individual hardware becomes even less relevant as a line item - where the management of networks and connected systems becomes more of a factor - owing to professional labor costs. This builds quickly and companies building on the MS platform can do more, develop more and earn not only more revenue, but more profitable revenue. I play this game each and every day - where small is big, or big is fast becoming irrelevant... and every day it gets better and less costly to manage. With OSS the reverse is true and the options far fewer - the incentive just is not there. In OSS it is not just individual labor costs per professional - that gap is narrow from what we see. It is the amount of time it takes to get anything done. In OSS the choices for business people are, "do less, or increase head count." This post was edited by lketchum on Wednesday, April 20, 2005 at 04:35. |
| #16 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/22/2005 2:51:59 AM |
|
#30, very very cool!
We have been refitting a lot of practices in our state and are offering schools the use of the old refurb'd hardware. What you've done here is a great idea and the path we've decided to take - with some mods. Thanks for a great idea. |
| #17 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/22/2005 8:51:48 PM |
|
#32, Thanks! That's a great tip.
WSUS would work - I'm testing it, now. It installs a locally available cy of the required DB, or may use an external DB. The clients use a small agent to support communications. We've seen this API used more and more with AV solutions, for example. It's pretty cool and has been more effective than RIS for distributing updates and it does so silently. Thanks, again. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 159 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:46:19 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
