| 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 |
 |
Study shows Microsoft, Linux costs neck-and-neck | |
|
||
| Time: 04:43 EST/09:43 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Alex Harris | ||
|
Most U.S. businesses say there is very little difference between the cost of maintaining a Windows versus a Linux-based corporate computing environment, according to a new Yankee Group study released on Monday. The main cost difference, said Yankee Group analyst Laura DiDio, is determined by the amount of time it takes to develop applications or ensure the security of servers, the networked computers that store data, crunch numbers and serve up Web pages. "What we found is that costs are not really dependent on the underlying functionality in the core operating system," DiDio said. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:54:49 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/5/2005 9:03:09 AM |
|
Usually you can count on Laura Didio for a generally ignorant pro-MS or anti-FOSS comment, so I'm really surprised that she could bring herself to not slaver all over MS in this article. I'm betting this latest TCO study doesn't factor in the costs of cleaning up malware & viruses, as usual. And the survey is total crap, even I like the outcome. Let's ask a bunch of random peope what their perceptions are about relative OS security, as if they had a clue. Next they'll be reading tea leaves.
Now it makes more sense. The whole thing was backed by Sunbelt Software, an MS Platinum Partner or something like that. The questions were crap and the only people who were invited to complete the survey were "Sunbelt W2K News" readers. This post was edited by Latch on Tuesday, April 05, 2005 at 10:47. |
| #2 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/5/2005 1:41:12 PM |
|
Let's ask a bunch of random peope what their perceptions are about relative OS security, as if they had a clue.
So I guess we should only ask you? No one is saying this is the law--but it is the experiences of a significant number of companies from a broad range of industries. But let me guess... if the study had found that "Linux security is better than Windows," you wouldn't complain or question the results at all. But oh no, someone dares to make the claim that Windows is as good or better than Linux in something, and only then let's start picking it apart and creating conspiracy theories and whatnot--because it wasn't the result you wanted. (And incidentally, from numerous reports of this study, every one of them said it was sponsored by no vendors.) |
| #3 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/5/2005 1:54:05 PM |
|
You do realize that your actions are making a chosen few rich
You gotta be kidding me. The IT industry--in which Microsoft plays a huge part--has provided money for millions of workers. This is hardly "making a chosen few rich," as if it were at the expense of the rest of us. And what is the problem with some people getting rich? If the "big businesses" are making products that smaller businesses never could because of a lack of resources, improving our lives and providing jobs for many, many people, what on earth is the problem with a "few" people getting rich? Sure, there is opportunity for abuses (as there also can be with small businesses), but I don't understand this irrational fear of this vaguely defined "big business" concept. Small businesses are important, but big businesses are a huge part of a country's economic strength. |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.90) at 4/5/2005 2:58:40 PM |
|
#3: No, I'm no more of a security expert than anyone else in here, or on the street. However, I would think that such a survey would have more worth if it was given to people who are 1) working in computer security and 2) have analyzed the relative security of more than one OS. This survey was basically to get opinions from laymen Windows users. They may as well have asked your grandmother, as her opinion would be just as valid as anyone else who took the survey.
But oh no, someone dares to make the claim that Windows is as good or better than Linux... It wasn't "someone", it was an MS Partner-backed FUDding from one of MS' favourite sock puppets, the Yankee Group. If this had come from somewhere without Gates' fingerprints all over the study, then it might have some merit. However, every time one of these bogus studies comes out, it has to be debunked. And lastly, it seems to ONLY studies that back MS position are always funded by MS. (And incidentally, from numerous reports of this study, every one of them said it was sponsored by no vendors.) Oh OK. Funny, cuz it appears that SUNBELT SOFTWARE (you know, the company that I mentioned in my first post?) is behind it. Their mag W2K News had the story, and their website hosts the actual questions. |
| #5 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/5/2005 6:28:40 PM |
|
This survey was basically to get opinions from laymen Windows users.
Where do you get this notion? Did you gain inside information on each of the 509 companies that responded? However, every time one of these bogus studies comes out, it has to be debunked. No, the things that have been said after the previous similar studies were that "MS backed it, so it must be false." That is not a logical statement. Disagree with the findings of the survey based on the merits of the survey, not because MS requested that the study be done and offered to pay for it. No one is going to do a study like this for free. Oh OK. Funny, cuz it appears that SUNBELT SOFTWARE (you know, the company that I mentioned in my first post?) is behind it. Their mag W2K News had the story, and their website hosts the actual questions. Funny, I've read in several places that it was NOT vendor-sponsored (W2K news is far from the only site carrying the story...). As for Sunbelt, do you mean this? from http://www.w2knews.com/ (emphasis added) An overwhelming 88% of corporations report that Microsoft Corp.'s Windows Server 2003 operating system provides equal to or better performance and reliability than Linux in comparable usage scenarios. Those are the results of Yankee Group's independent, non-sponsored North American Linux Windows 2005 TCO Comparison survey. There's no mention at all that they were involved. Do you care to provide a more substantive link that shows that Sunbelt actually paid for the study? And even if they did, can you tell me (demonstrate, not theorize) exactly how it changed the results of the responses of those 509 companies? Even if Bill Gates himself paid for the study, can you show exactly how it changed the responses? |
| #6 By 3653 (68.54.224.219) at 4/5/2005 11:50:09 PM |
| Just another data point to show that MSFT is actively changing perceptions. They took their biggest negatives and have focused hard on them. You see, that is what GREAT companies do. That is why they are on the top of the heap, and why they will stay there for a good many years. |
| #7 By 23275 (68.17.42.38) at 4/6/2005 7:45:45 AM |
|
#10 good points and certainly true. That MS has based their presentation of that which can be demonstrated adds weight to your observation.
I cannot speak to what others have experienced and can only share what my own observations have been. That said, I cannot in any way recommend OSS/Linuces for any company seeking a profitable solution. For all but one client [it used to be five of them that tried OSS], they use Microsoft software to build solutions - custom and otherwise. The remaining OSS centric client uses OSS and a variety of distributions for their product which we support and manage for them. They use a wide variety of Microsoft software to bridge what they cannot do as easily in OSS [mail, corporate domain, backup, mapping, portals, etc..]. For the application they develop and sell, they use OSS and have taken a beating - despite having a great application. While many among dozens of supported clients have evaluated OSS, only one chose to build on it. That of course is not the point of the thread - it is the costs associated with developing on and using the Linuces vice Microsoft Software. I wish there was time to share all that we have noted, but this place simply isn't that forum. I can say that from what I have personally seen and compensated for, OSS/Linuces have been very unfairly represented as a viable alternative to commercial software. They simply are not - not yet at least and they are not likely to be for some time. I have found that even opposite the smallest, or simplest of tasks, I have spent as much time explaining [and ironically so] solutions for the Lincues to those who should know them best - the company's own engineers and developers. When it comes to more complex issues, the practical considerations [time, money, number of systems], it has been even worse. For anyone interested in more detail, write - I'll share examples and what we have seen. I know the flames from many will come, but I ask one consideration - how many people do you pay each week? I ask that not to be flipant, but to shape perspectives - to ask a fundamental question facing business people of all types. I ask also, if you do pay them, did you build your company yourself? - so many people do and while they share the up-side, they don't share the risk. Yes, people can lose work, but for many facing the OSS/Commercial SW decision, they stand to lose everything. Against that risk, OSS is not a wise choice. |
| #8 By 16451 (65.19.17.230) at 4/6/2005 10:03:21 AM |
|
>>> but I ask one consideration - how many people do you pay each week?
about three hundred >>> I ask also, if you do pay them ... you only asked for one consideration |
| #9 By 7754 (216.160.8.41) at 4/6/2005 11:54:38 AM |
|
-X-: Reading through the survey, it is clearly addressed to Microsoft users, ex-users, or soon to be ex-users. http://www.sunbelt-software.com/surveys/040213_Linux.htm with questions about migrating from Unix/Linux to Microsoft. Not anything about migrating the other way around.
Uh, what? (A's, B's, C's, etc., and bolding added for clarity) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. What is your company's primary server operating system? A) Windows B) Linux C) Unix D) Other 5. What changes if any will your company make to its desktop OS environment? C) We plan a total migration from Windows to Linux D) We plan to add Linux desktops but will not replace Windows 6. What changes if any will your company make to its server OS environment? C)We plan to migrate a portion of our Windows servers to Linux D) We plan a total migration from Windows servers to Linux 9. If your firm plans a major or total switch from Windows and/or Unix servers, has it performed a thorough cost analysis? 11. If your firm has already migrated from Windows servers to Linux servers indicate the areas of cost savings (check all that apply): 13. If your firm has already migrated to Linux rate the reliability in terms of unnecessary reboots compared with Windows 2000 Server: (etc. etc.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Looks like there's plenty about "migrating the other way around." This post was edited by bluvg on Wednesday, April 06, 2005 at 11:57. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 309 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:54:50 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
