Anyone want to see microsoft liars in action >>Windows Cheaper than Linux ?

[Proxykillah]

IDC: Windows cheaper than Linux


By Stephen Shankland
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
December 3, 2002, 4:58 PM PT


Research firm IDC, in a Microsoft-funded study, has reinforced a Microsoft argument that Linux is more expensive to administer than Windows, a factor that makes Windows less expensive overall in most server uses.
IDC found that Linux cost less than Windows for hosting Web sites, but that in four other areas Windows 2000 was less expensive overall. "The cost advantages are driven primarily by Windows' significantly lower costs for IT (information technology) staffing, generally the largest single component of IT costs," IDC said in the study.

Sidebar: Proxykillah says thats B.S., because Linux is more versatile, and stable. You take one guy that knows linux, and he can make it do anything you want. So much for needing an IT department huh? And what are the four other areas? They failed to mention that

The Microsoft-funded study, released Monday, polled 104 North American companies and evaluated costs for networked server computers supporting 100 users over a five-year period. The servers were used for tasks ranging from sharing files, running protective firewall software, and sending print jobs to printers--typically jobs run on lower-end servers where Linux and Windows are most widely used.



The biggest difference was in security servers, where Linux systems cost $91,000 over five years and Windows systems cost $70,000, IDC said.

Sidebar: Proxykillah says, Now thats just a joke. Talking about Windows Security ??
Did they take into account all the virus's that effect Windows systems ? Have a look at this since they want to talk Security:
Just a 10 seconds search and here is what i got:

Keep in mind these are old and I havent put any time into it, there are way way way more windows holes than linux or unix

Linux Exploits


Microshaft


Next came print jobs, where a Linux server cost $107,000 over five years and a Windows server cost $87,000. In file sharing, Linux cost $114,000 to Windows' $99,000. In Web site jobs, Linux was less expensive at $31,000 to Windows' $32,000.

The findings reinforce a long-held argument by Microsoft that its systems don't cost as much to run as Linux does. These administration costs account for the vast majority of the overall ownership cost--62 percent, according to IDC--dwarfing differences in the initial software costs.

Linux, unlike Windows, is available for free from companies such as Red Hat, which also sell versions with manuals, technical support and other features. But a low initial price tag is not the deciding factor, IDC said.

Linux's price has been influential, however. For one thing, it spurred Microsoft to sell a new lower-priced "Web Server" edition of the next version of Windows, .Net Server 2003 due in April. For another thing, Linux has pressured companies such as Sun Microsystems to sell Unix servers.

And Microsoft acknowledges its own prices have been an issue in cash-strapped countries such as Namibia.

Software acquisition costs are 4.6 percent of the overall server costs over five years, and hardware acquisition is 4.4 percent, IDC said. Much more significant is the cost of unexpected computer downtime, when companies have to spend time rebooting and reconfiguring systems and the people who need to use the servers are idle.

For those of you who use Windows,how many times have you seen the Blue Screen of Death? Better yet, how many times have you had to reboot your system because it is so slow?
Welcome to the Windows File System

IDC expects the overall cost gap between Linux and Windows to shrink as Linux becomes more widespread, administrators grow more familiar with it, and management software supports it better.

They seem to have not mentioned the fact, that The GNU/LINUX base is FREE
They seem to not mention also, that Microsoft Hotmail is running on a Linux server Thats common information.

"We believe these higher costs are...related to the relative immaturity of the management tools available today for Linux systems," IDC said. Administrators, too, will become more adept. "Over time, the gap in support costs between Linux and Windows will contract."

While major management software packages from BMC Software, Computer Associates International, Hewlett-Packard and IBM are extending to include Linux, that software isn't free, IDC added. And Windows is a moving target: Its management tools are getting better as Linux improves, IDC said.

Notice that the study is Microsoft Funded also .... kinda makes you wonder why they think Microsoft is better huh ?

[Edith Piaf]

in france we use microsoft all the time et aussi the same programme logiciels on the MAC. do americans use macs? i think windows is most easy for all programmes

[Proxykillah]

Yes they use MAC's here. Windows was created for $$$ first, Ease of use 2nd, and Security somewhere after that.
I just cant belive they think they are better than Linux.

[Edith Piaf]

i never utilised lunix so i cannot say

[The Finman]

I hate Macs...Apple is a HUGE donor to the democRATS.

Edith I often see you use the word "aussie" and I think my definition is different than yours

aussie = australian

And you never told which avatar out of the three that I showed you that you want

[Radical Conservative]

Originally posted by The Finman:
I hate Macs...Apple is a HUGE donor to the democRATS.

Uhh so was Bill Gates Clinton even had him at one of SOTU speechs Fin

[The Finman]

Originally posted by Radical Conservative:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by The Finman:
I hate Macs...Apple is a HUGE donor to the democRATS.

Uhh so was Bill Gates Clinton even had him at one of SOTU speechs Fin </font>[/quote]Clinton had his justice department try to cripple Microsoft because Gates didn't give the DemonRATS a dime (didn't give the Republicans a dime either), but what Janet El Reno and the Justice Department did to Microsoft was payback to Apple and a shot across the bow at Microsoft to tell them they should follow Apple's example.

Rush wrote a good piece on this subject.

I believe that there are far too many people that simply don't understand what this Microsoft case was all about. I explained that the lawsuit brought by the Clinton justice department was politically motivated, because Bill Gates never did pay politicians protection money to keep them off his back. Therefore, there were no politicians on either side to protect Microsoft, and Microsoft's competitors used their own Washington people to damage the leader of the pack. What they didn't count on was the lawsuit causing the NASDAQ to tank...subsequently causing the NYSE as well as the economy to be thrown into a tail spin as well.

Let's take a look at Microsoft and Apple...The main reason that Apple has failed to make a serious in roads is mainly do to their arrogance regarding their product which subsequently caused them to fail to make a dent in the market share, and now they have a tiny market share, and they expect the government to help cut Microsoft off at the knees? Do you begin to see how complex this issue is?

Also,there is no monopoly - as thousands of schools have proved by using Apple products exclusivly for their computing needs.

Let me also state that I wish that some of you that bash Microsoft would get just half as upset about the federal government taking one-third of your income as you do about an Internet browser or your OS, for crying out loud.

I wish you'd get as upset about Washington trying to destroy the private health care system in this country and nationalizing private property in the name of the environment as you do about your OS and your so-called nonexistent monopoly out there.

Life isn't easy, and simply sitting around complaining about how a bunch of big guys are making life tough for you is not going to get any sympathy from me. I don't have the capacity. If you want sympathy from me, you're not going to get it. It's not possible to earn sympathy, here. It is, however - if you go out there and bust your rear end and work against the odds and struggle and come up a little short - possible to gain respect.

[Edith Piaf]

Finman
yes i did i sent you a private message about 6am GMT +1 (France time) wed morning but i guess you never got it. i love the first avatar of edith piaf. i am sorry que votre message did not receive to you. aussie i know is austrialian. i am saying aussi which in french is when you include added things.

[DoctorDoom]

One factor re Linux that is not often mentioned is that thusfar it is not a significant enough target for the NFG li'l bahstards who get their rocks off damaging other people's computers and systems.

The same is true re Apple, thank to Steve Jobs' "MINE! MINE! MINE!" mentality re Macs. It's such a small percentage of the installed user base that it's not an inviting target.

When Linux becomes a signicant factor, it WILL be targeted, and I suspect that the open-source code will make it that much easier for the cretins to attack.

Lastly, the vast majority of the Windows security issues (I get the MS releases via email) have never been exploited, and are discovered only because people are spending their working days trying to find holes.

Could Windows be more secure? Certainly. All that's required is to say "Screw you!" to those who want an OS that is all things to all people, and must do EVERYTHING with a mouse-click. Unfortunately, the vast majority of computer users are appliance operators to whom the computer is a black box that must do what they want in the manner that they want to do it.

A "user-friendly" OS is a programmer's nightmare. The easier it is for the user to operate, the harder it is to program. I used to program machine-language code for the Commodore 64. Getting the machine to do something was not that difficult. Making the program easy for the users was the bear (and having 39K of RAM to do it in was especially daunting). Even with the 512K RAM expander, the shoes were tight.

And, trying to compensate for human ineptness and stupidity was the greatest challenge of all. It's one thing to make an OS that works well when people do everything right, and quite another to make it foolproof when they do things the wrong way.

The answer to security issues is to make computers harder to use, so that those who want to run them must have some level of competence, and the OS doesn't have to be a baby-sitter. It will then need far fewer lines of code and by definition far fewer opportunities for holes in the code.

A fresh install of Windows XP eats up half a gig plus. All that code it to make life easier for John and Jane Mouseclicker, so that they don't have to know a damn thing other than how to turn the puter on and off. And, all that code invites problems, since it is utterly impossible to test every line of code under every possible condition.

In the nuclear industry, there is a concept known by the acronym ALARA, meaning As Low As Reasonably Achievable. This states that there is a point of diminishing returns where additional security and safety precautions serve no useful purpose. The same concept should apply to puter software. There is a point where the effort required to render a machine utterly impervious cannot be justified in view of the unlikelihood of anyone successfully defeating the security.

In short, an OS cannot be 100% secure, but it can be secure enough that there is a vanishingly small probability of its being penetrated by the usual suspects. Combined with users having a basic awareness of security protocol, computers can for all practical purposes be secure.

[bourbon sheriff]

Yes Edith, I have also noticed you typing "aussi" a lot which in English translates to "also."