| 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 |
 |
"Get the Facts on Windows and Linux" Website | |
|
||
| Time: 13:22 EST/18:22 GMT | News Source: Microsoft | Posted By: Jonathan Tigner | ||
|
Industry case studies, business analysts' reports, and test lab results provide insight into the advantages of the Microsoft® Windows® platform. Here are the facts you need to make the choice between Windows and Linux. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:59:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3 (62.253.128.7) at 1/6/2004 5:45:18 PM |
| It would be nice to see a good site comparing the two, can't see one around at the moment, there is only one good site comparing OS X to Windows XP etc, so might be a while until we see an unbiased linux and Windows one. |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 1/7/2004 1:21:50 AM |
|
#10 - I still run into people that don't know windows has updates.
What does that have to do with Windows being, or not being, better than the alternatives? Most companies would save alot more by using , say , bsd servers, but then setting them up can be a chore for the linux handicapped. And you're basing these conclusions on what? If you reject Microsoft's paid-for studies, what studies can you cite that are better? Two weeks after I aquired server 2003 , ms sends me a disk , #3 and an apology that sharepoint borks the install. That toasted any deal I could've made. Add to that thier 5 client liscense and WPA and you've got a real loser. Ah yes, your "Windows sucks" story. Give me a break. That "real loser" serves 10 million requests a day for me on two servers that cost less than $8000 - put together. Bsd will run legally on as many computers as you want/need. No kidding. BSD is free. Windows isn't. What a concept. no limit on pc s or activation and the icing on the cake is you can run bsd on an older system(s). What's your problem with activation? I've activated dozens of systems... and it has always, quite literally, been a 5 second "click, click, OK" for me. I've also done numerous upgrades to many of those systems, and not once has it prompted me to re-activate. The fact of the matter is that if people weren't liars and theives, Microsoft wouldn't need activation. most business customers I've seen would have to upgrade thier systems to even run the bare minimum of 2k3. where as bsd flies like the wind on a plain 233MHz system! What a retarded argument. Windows 3.1 would FLY on a 233MHz system, but alas, I don't want to use Windows 3.1. I love BSD... don't get me wrong, but pound for pound it simply doesn't match up with Win2k3. Just because something can run on a crappy old system doesn't mean it's faster... it means it has less overhead because, typically, it DOES LESS. Personally, I've had no problems running Win2k3 on a PIII-500 with 256MB of ram. I use it as a backup development server. Runs just fine. Would I ever use that to host any serious site? Of course not. Nor would any mildly competent person use a 233MHz system, either. This post was edited by RMD on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 at 01:24. |
| #3 By 2332 (65.221.182.2) at 1/7/2004 1:23:32 AM |
|
#11 - I highly doubt MS has a lower TCO. Microsoft Licensing alone must have been the biggest ripoff ever. Has everyone forgotten?
So that would suggest that you believe the majority of the cost of a solution comes from the initial purchase/license price of the software? The only thing you've proven is that you have no idea what TCO is, nor what the costs of maintaining a solution in the long term are. |
| #4 By 12071 (203.33.255.2) at 1/7/2004 2:23:51 AM |
|
#15 Parker... Why do you keep reading slashdot given that it apparently is "the biggest website devoted to Linux"? Do you perhaps read it for the majority of the news stories which have nothing to do with Linux and everything to do with technology? If so, then I hardly see it as being devoted to Linux! The one thing that it definitely is NOT is devoted to Microsoft, maybe that's what upsets you.
"...and says Microsoft software is better" No? Really? Wow! I'm shocked! I honestly did not see that one coming! "Microsoft-sponsored benchmarks prove that multiple WinTel Web servers perform better than a Linux mainframe acting as a Web server consolidator" Wow! Cheap x86 computers being cheaper than a mainframe? Who would have thought? Oh everybody! It's just a damn pity that Linux can't be run on those very same x86's and has to be run on a mainframe instead.... oh hang on =) Not everyone on Slashdot thinks the same (although there is a general anti-MS feeling, at times taken to an extreme by a few vocals) just like not everyone here thinks the same (although the majority could easily be described as Microsoft faithfuls (to be nice)). |
| #5 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 1/7/2004 9:53:53 AM |
|
This is probably the best attack on Linux I've seen from Microsoft yet. But, I have to question the validity/usefullness of the reports on the front page.
Why would I care about the cost of server deployments based on HW and SW costs 3 years ago? How does that pertain to today's market. Also, why is a comparison of TCO between a mainframe and a WinTel server valid? If I recall the study was an attempt to silence IBMs claims that an IBM z900 could replace hundreds of Windows Servers. Let's not forget that ZD was not allowed to verify that the server benchmark programs were configured correctly. This doesn't really have much to do with a cost comparison of Linux vs. Windows but more of a X86 vs. mainframe. The last report was so decidedly slanted in Microsofts favor (Microsoft choose the software to run on each platform) that even the Giga Information Group has backed away from this report. This is a nice initial effort that is certainly more reasoned than past attacks on Linux. It certainly could be that Windows is technically superior and cheaper than Linux (I'm not touching that), but these reports leave a lot to be desired to answering that question. This post was edited by happyguy on Wednesday, January 07, 2004 at 09:55. |
| #6 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 1/7/2004 2:31:22 PM |
| Byron, I hope you're not referring to http://www.xvsxp.com/.... |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:59:01 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
