| 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 |
 |
Studies on Linux help their patron: Microsoft | |
|
||
| Time: 15:29 EST/20:29 GMT | News Source: Seattle PI | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. is touting the results of "independent analyses" in its latest effort to show corporate decision-makers the merits of its Windows operating system vs. Linux, its biggest open-source competitor. The studies were, in fact, performed by well-known, independent research firms such as IDC, Giga Research and Meta Group. But the reports themselves tell the rest of the story: They were conducted "at the request of Microsoft," "commissioned by Microsoft" or "prepared under contract from Microsoft." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:18:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/27/2004 8:21:09 PM |
|
#1 I believe the point that is being made is something more along the lines of:
If Tom's Hardware (http://www.tomshardware.com/) gets paid by Intel to prepare a study of Intel CPU's vs AMD CPU's and then it publishes that study as an "indenpendent analysis", you should be aware that it may not be as "independent" as you might be led to believe. As the article states, "If Microsoft or any company pays for a report to be written about itself, you have to take what the report says with a grain of salt. Some will be truly independent, but others will either consciously or subconsciously slant the report.". I've used this specific example as for a while at least, Tom's Hardware was seen as very pro-Intel and anti-AMD site with the results being slightly to significantly different to those on other hardware sites. So this has nothing to do with advertisers or sponsorship. |
| #2 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/27/2004 10:04:39 PM |
| #3 Intel didn't pay for Tom's Hardware to lie either, they paid for a "happy ending". For every report on X vs Y which shows X comes out on top, there will be another report showing Y coming out on top. So which report do you believe in the end? Guess you have to read both to try and understand why they have differing results. |
| #3 By 12071 (203.185.215.149) at 1/28/2004 2:15:05 AM |
|
#5 "Are you suggesting there are studies that support Linux?"
Yes, a little known company by the name of Gartner has written a couple of studies supporting Linux, but you know my feelings about Gartner! As I said you have to read the specifics of the study done to understand it's worth rather than saying oooh a new study shows that the TCO for Windows is lower than Linux therefore that must be true in every single case imaginable! Additionally, most of the TCO studies don't take into account system downtime and how much THAT will cost you. #6 "Once again though you attack the credibiity of the study without providing evidence that it is wrong." I haven't attacked any particular study in this thread. I was simply giving parker a better example as what he came out with came out of left field and wasn't at all what this story was about! Taking a look at the studies that Microsoft presents, we have (just on the main page): Lower Windows Staffing Costs Provide a TCO Advantage Over Linux - So Windows sysadmins are cheaper than their Linux counterparts? No problem, if I was a sysadmin I'd be going for Linux, I'd get paid more. Were things like the number of Linux sysadmins required vs number of Windows sysadmins required compared? Or was the assumption that if you need 10 Windows sysadmins then you must obviously need 10 Linux sysadmins (and vice-versa). Windows Server 2003 Far Less Expensive to Operate Than Linux Mainframe - It compares a $786,250 mainframe to a $49,285 (after discount) P3 Xeon and it concludes that Windows is cheaper than Linux - brilliant! I wonder if they thought about running Linux on that P3 Xeon. Microsoft .NET Development Platform Delivers 25% Lower Development and Support Costs Than J2EE/Linux - This has so little to do with Windows vs Linux it's not funny. The study is about costs incurred due to development in .NET vs J2EE. All that's sprinkled on top is that there is more "support" costs for Linux, both in IT skills and with development - which is intriguing given that the IDE for .NET is far more expensive than the free IDE available for Java (Eclipse). |
| #4 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 1/28/2004 11:46:45 AM |
|
Parker, there is only one TCO study favoring Linux that I know of. The others are a comparison of Unix to Linux.
RFG's study, "Total Cost of Ownership for Linux Web Servers in the Enterprise available at http://www.rfgonline.com/ (free registration required) They did. But RedHat and SUSE with 7/24 support options was way too expensive. RedHat was 2500$ per year ... 3000$ if it ran on Itanium or Opteron. Per Year. Ouch! SUSE was almost as much. Ummm, SUSE server is $749.00 which includes one year maintenence (updates, etc). Actual support is $2250.00 per year per server. SUSE costs more than RedHat if you want 24X7 support w/ a 2 hour response time. Win2K3 Web server was only 395. In fact, for the same amount of money as RedHat you could buy a dual Xeon with Win2K3 Web Edition - each year! Ayone that thinks they need to purchase RedHat enterprise with 24/7 support for a web server should probably be canned. Use a free version of the OS and make sure your tech dept. knows how to maintain the software. A properly run server environment should never have any downtime (Linux or Windows), irregardless of any software problems. |
| #5 By 1845 (67.161.212.73) at 1/28/2004 11:53:03 AM |
| *regardless | irrespective |
| #6 By 19992 (164.214.4.61) at 1/28/2004 1:20:22 PM |
| #11 ahh, it's just an etymological blend of the two words. But in order to satisfy those non-Americans I'll go with regardless. OK? :) |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 150 Last | Next |
The time now is
2:18:07 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
