| 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 |
 |
Is Microsoft Less Expensive Than Linux? | |
|
||
| Time: 18:03 EST/23:03 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
UNTIL RECENTLY, if you wanted to find someone who thought that a Windows-based program was cheaper than one based on Linux, you had to go all the way to Redmond. No more. Not since Microsoft paid Forrester Research's Giga Research to conduct a comparative study of the costs of developing a Web-based portal. The study compared the costs incurred by five large and midsize companies that used the Java 2 Enterprise Edition with costs incurred by seven large and midsize companies that used .Net applications. For large corporations in the study, the cost of using Microsoft products for development and deployment plus three years of maintenance was 28 percent less than the cost for J2EE/Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 301 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:21:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 931 (68.215.180.151) at 12/5/2003 4:56:47 AM |
|
old news this had been done before both independently and ms sponsored..
MS wins everytime.. either slightly or by a wide margin.. it's just a fact in 99% of the cases that windows will be cheaper overall. Alot of this advantage comes from the toolsets\ time savings involved. |
| #2 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 12/5/2003 9:31:29 AM |
|
Well that's nice and all but unfortunately the fact that it was paid for makes it irrelevant. We need independant unbiased studies. Studies with cash attached always come with strings attached.
Well that's flawed logic. A sponsorship can cause bias, but doesn't inherently imply bias. I don't know where (or if) you took statistics, but it certainly was different from the classes I've taken. |
| #3 By 20 (24.173.210.58) at 12/5/2003 10:46:50 AM |
|
Eek.. I feel sorry for people running J2EE apps on Linux (dog, dog slow). The Linux JVM blows.
Of course, the JVM (the one written by Sun, as a matter of fact) runs fastest on Windows. But time for development and time-to-market with .NET is a fraction of that to develop a similar J2EE app. I just got off a project where part of the site was in .NET and part in J2EE. They spent half the time just getting to a point where they had some type of web form processing infrastructure (Apache Struts + tons of fixes + tons of hacks and patches to make it not suck). Like most MS products, .NET just works out of the box, no crap or BS to deal with like Java. |
| #4 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 12/5/2003 11:06:21 AM |
|
Of course, it's not shocking that a study commissioned by Microsoft should demonstrate the advantages of that company's products over Linux, but the fact that the study was commissioned at all reveals Microsoft's concern.
It should read "...it's not shocking that a study commissioned and published by Microsoft...." Just because the study was commissioned by Microsoft from Giga does not invalidate the results found (Oracle and J2EE vs. SQL and .NET? C'mon, did you really think Oracle was going to come in at a lower cost?). However, it's not surprising that a favorable study was published. If the study had found unfavorable results for Microsoft, they simply wouldn't publish it. This post was edited by bluvg on Friday, December 05, 2003 at 11:07. |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/5/2003 11:56:27 AM |
|
I've noticed Linux zealots always seem to have a problem with studies sponsored by Microsoft, but they keep touting studies sponsored by IBM, Redhat and other companies associated with Linux as being wonderful.
The only studies I've ever seen that were biased by made up crap is the Linux advocacy sites. You never see this from professional studies. The way you bias studies is by identifying the particular situations where your product does well and writing about them. So read the study and determine if the situation that they use is at all applicable to your needs. The money isn't an issue if you're smart enough to know your own needs. |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 12/6/2003 12:57:21 PM |
|
Java is not inherently slow. The problem is that the recommended design patterns from Sun tell coders to write code that is inherently slow.
Is Java slower than .NET? Yes. But it's not "dog" slow. It all depends on the situation. Also, it was the MS JVM that ran the fastest on Windows (by about 5x), not Sun's JVM. In addition, it only ran 5x as fast when using the OS-specific extensions (namely, COM stuff) instead of "pure" Java. This is one big reason why MS got in trouble and got sued by Sun. (I still think the suit was baloney, and you can read why here: http://www.robertdowney.com/athought_sunvsms.html). |
| #7 By 20 (67.9.179.51) at 12/6/2003 10:40:58 PM |
|
#8: I just worked on a project where part of the web site was .NET, part was JSP with a custom modified version of Struts (to fix all the bugs). And yes, it was DOG slow. Simple pages took a long time. Most of the server processor time is spend on the tomcat (and therefore Java) processes. It's a dog, face it. Certainly it's better now with the newer Sun JVMs and the fact that Java is no longer interpreted but JIT compiled (like .NET is), but it's still dog slow. It's a fundamental design of the JVM that causes this. The Java processes can handle far fewer users on the same equipment.
As far as the MS JVM, it's not even worth talking about. That was many years ago and Java is almost completely different from the 1.1 days. 1.4 is current and it's radically different in almost everything but the syntax of the language itself. Sun's recent JVMs are far better than their predecessors, but the one on Windows still out performs essentially the same code on the Solaris and Linux JVM's. I believe this is simply because of the design of Windows and Windows offers significant performance gains over Solaris and Linux on equivalent hardware. The reason MS got sued is several reasons: a.) their Windows-specific extensions b.) their non-compliance with the JDK 1.1.4 spec [i.e. doing remoting completely different, leaving out JNI, etc]) and c.) their JVM was much, much better than Suns ;) Ok, I threw in that last one, but essentially that was the case |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 301 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:21:34 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
