| 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 |
 |
Linux networks much cheaper than Windows - report | |
|
||
| Time: 03:16 EST/08:16 GMT | News Source: The Register | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Total cost of ownership (TCO) for medium-sized companies is up to a third lower for Linux than for Windows based systems. That's according to Australian IT services firm Cybersource which reckons a Linux-based system is between 34 per cent and 25 percent less expensive to run than a Windows network, with users deploying open source on existing hardware saving the most. The study (which looked at purchasing and operating costs) aimed to benchmark TCO for an organisation with 250 users, over three years. The costing models included staff costs, application licences, maintaining servers and workstations and networking, as well as miscellaneous systems costs. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 438 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:50:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 931 (24.98.84.138) at 5/4/2002 7:16:47 AM |
|
Come on we've heard all this crud before.. (no i did not even bother reading this report)
They never account for performance, usability, productivity, maintenance, cost of admins etc.. ...this is not news. |
| #2 By 1190 (63.28.229.229) at 5/4/2002 9:01:40 AM |
|
#1, so basically you think we should all commit oureselves to the upgrade treadmill, just so you can have faster processors? Umm...why do we even need faster processors? Clock speeds continue to increase at a staggering rate...and you think faster chips should come to market even sooner!?!?
You're living in the past my friend. Clock speed is a rip-off. I'll bet you think that performance doubles when clock speeds double, don't you? |
| #3 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/4/2002 5:41:12 PM |
|
#11 - ASP.NET is free. How can PHP cost less? And no, you don't need IIS to run ASP.NET. Any web server that supports ISAPI filters (which means pretty much every web server) can run ASP.NET.
I would comment on this particular report, but I'm still unable to download the report. There are a million and one ways to skew numbers to make it work. There are many more reports that show Windows has a much power TCO than Linux than there are that show the opposite. That's the only reason I tend to believe that Windows really does have a lower TCO. Plus, it makes more sense that Windows would have a lower TCO. The biggest cost of running a network isn't the initial price (in fact, the initial price is almost irrelevant), it's the upkeep. Windows is far easier, by everybody's standards, to administer and manage; especially running Active Directory. In an organization of 250 users, it would be a hands down winner. So that leaves the cost of hardware and the cost of software. As I said, the cost of the OS is basically irrelevant in nearly all significant installations. The hardware is another thing. Linux will certainly run better on older machines than Windows will. You would be nuts to run Win2k Server on anything less than a PII-300 with 256MB of ram - and that installation would only support a handful of users. But on relatively modern hardware, Windows performs and scales better than Linux. So if you have hardware that was purchase within the last 2 years, Windows would easily be the best choice, since hardware isn't part of the new install. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/4/2002 5:44:32 PM |
|
News Flash! Honda Civic costs less than a Chevy Silverado by nearly half!
Yet I don't know of very many construction companies who have stopped buying Chevy trucks in favor of Civics. Use the right tool for the right job. #1 is correct that this focus upon cheaper hardware, cheaper software yields a company which is not as competitive. |
| #5 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/4/2002 10:26:15 PM |
|
#22 - Care to check out the latest TPC reports? Who *controls* those charts?
That's right, Windows. "Windows runs on how many brands, types and classes of microprocessors? How many 100-node clusters do you see running Windows?" Brands? Well, Windows runs on the most popular CPU architecture on the market - x86. As far as 100 node clusters, let's start comparing price/performance ratios. Again, take a look at TPC. If you want to talk about scalability, at least have *some* benchmarks to back you up. |
| #6 By 135 (208.50.201.48) at 5/5/2002 1:09:02 AM |
|
#25 - Look, the Windows v Linux argument is over. Linux lost. It's time to get over it.
|
| #7 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/5/2002 6:34:15 AM |
|
#25 -
"Scalability... Have you ever specced/priced 2000 DataCenter?" Yeah, as a matter of fact I have. Again, look at TPC... Datacenter has the best price/performance ratio of any system out there. "Windows runs exclusively on small iron, commodity x86 systems." Uh huh. Luckily, those "small iron" systems beat out the multi-million dollar mainframes you seem so fond of in the price/performance arena - which is the only one that matters. If you need the shear performance of that mainframe, you can spend less money on a Windows cluster, and use Active Directory to manage it just as easily (and in a far more reliable/redudant setup) as that over priced mainframe. "Linux *scales* from the smallest of embedded CPUs in handheld portable personal entertainment devices up through multi-million dollar IBM s/390 mainframes. And just about everything in the middle..." Ok. So explain to me why they don't rule the TPC? "Scalability... Yeah, Linux doesn't scale well at all... That's why DOE just paid $24Mil for an 8.3Teraflop monstrosity... http://mscf.emsl.pnl.gov/capabs/mscf/index.html" Ya, I would definitly call that a monstrosity. Since when was the government in a habit of looking for the best deal? If you shove enough money at the hardware, you can "force" anything to "scale"... but that doesn't equate to scalability. "I at least don't have blinders on... " Nor do I, thank you very much. Oh, and by the way, Microsoft might not "hold the patent on scalability", but they did invent the word... literally. |
| #8 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/5/2002 4:48:51 PM |
|
#28 - Well, first, the page you posted proves exactly what I said - Windows wins hands down in the price / performance arena. 2960 @ 336 US $ vs 1699 @ 161 US $.
Second, where is that quote from? "implied that Linux wasn't scalable at all" And I stick by the assessment. |
| #9 By 2332 (129.21.145.80) at 5/5/2002 10:49:06 PM |
|
#32 - "you're comparing a 16-machine cluster to a single 8-CPU box. I think we can all agree that the single machine will be cheaper. Again, as I said, statistics and benchmarks like this prove little to nothing... "
But that's *exactly* the point. If I can get the same performance for considerably less cost, then why would I go for the more expensive option? Price/performance is the only thing that matters - not raw performance - not raw price. Of course there are many other factors that would need to be considered, like TCO, current/legacy systems integration, managability, etc. If you have a 100% unix based network, it doens't make sense to go Windows. If, however, you're starting fresh... or already have Windows, I've yet to hear of a single good argument as to why you wouldn't want to do so. Actually, I take that back. I have heard of one good argument. If you're an educational institution (especially a highschool), Mac is a good choice. Personally, I hate em. But you can't beat the price if you're a school, and some of their new administrative tools are pretty neat. "PS. The quote was from some guy in a usenet posting from a year or so ago. Just his opinion but then all this discussion is is opinion." Funny, I form my opinions based on my own experience and understanding of the evidence that's available to me, not from reading a post from a random person on a newsgroup. I'm a skeptic, and so you must provide me with evidence in order to change my mind. I've read countless benchmarks, TCO reports, and have used everything I talk about. That is why I go Microsoft most of the time, not because I have "blinders" on, or because I'm "close minded." There is a difference between believing in something because of the facts in front of you, and believing in something simply because it fits your established world view. I'm not suggesting that you are doing the later, I'm simply saying that unless you provide me with a strong reason to change my view, I'm not going to do so - and neither should you. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 438 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:50:54 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
