Windows Cheaper Than Linux, Says Microsoft

VNUNeet ^ | 5 November, 2002 | Rob Jones

[Bush2000]

Your posts remind me of Microsoft press releases.

Seek therapy.

[TheEngineer]

Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he [European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois] said.

I can definitely say that running Windows 2000 saves me at least a few minutes per day in productivity, so it effectively justifies the licensing cost. I would suspect that it's the same for the vast majority of computer users. Let's face it... If you have an employee receiving $15 per hour and working on a computer, you don't want him wrestling with Linux just to save the $200 Windows licensing fee. Compared to the salary and benefits, that kind of money is down in the noise.

I've heard the arguments saying, "If a company has 20,000 employees, they would save $4,000,000 by using Linux!" Well that doesn't sound so great when you consider the dent that it will put into the productivity of a $600,000,000 payroll.

Linux for now is cost-effective for web servers, mail servers, and developers. That's where the significant user base is. Arguments to the contrary amount to saying that the marketplace is either wrong or too stupid to understand Linux's value.

Claims that the marketplace is wrong remind me of the democrat leaders saying that this week's voters were just too stupid or unsophisticated to hear their message. If you don't want to sound arrogant, you gotta accept the decisions of the marketplace as being correct.