Windows Cheaper Than Linux, Says Microsoft

VNUNeet ^ | 5 November, 2002 | Rob Jones

[ShadowAce]

European chief argues that total cost of ownership is lower

Microsoft has dismissed claims that Linux is more cost-effective for businesses, arguing that Windows is cheaper over its total lifecycle.

When asked by Gartner about Microsoft's intensifying battle against the open source operating system, European president Jean-Phillipe Courtois claimed that Linux is in fact more expensive to run than Windows.

Arguments that Linux is free, and therefore a good alternative for governments and organisations on a tight budget, are incorrect, he said.

Courtois claimed that Microsoft has been tracking the total cost of ownership (TCO) in 12 organisations across a range of business sectors, and that in 95 per cent of cases the "TCO was better on the Windows platform".

Licensing costs account for just five per cent of the total cost of an operating system, he said, and those plumping for Microsoft have an easier life in terms of application integration both internally and with external business partners.

But Courtois was challenged by Peter Sondergaard, Gartner's president of research in Europe.

He argued that the perception among chief information officers is that Linux and open source software is more cost-effective than Windows and Microsoft's Office applications.

"I do expect that some of your clients are looking for a response on licensing or more flexibility in the packaging," he said.

Courtois replied: "As soon as you start digging down you go beyond licensing. It's not that we are perfect with licensing; we need to make it simpler. But it's about the end-to-end environment."

He claimed that, with such a rich diversity of software applications and hardware devices now on the market, companies can achieve tighter integration by using Windows.

However, there is growing interest in Linux in the public sector. Last month, West Yorkshire police took delivery of Linux desktops as part of a trial for the operating system for English and Welsh forces.

And the European Commission handed open source advocate Netproject a €250,000 (£160,000) contract to conduct a feasibility study into running the operating system in government departments.

[winner45]

Can't do XP; Boss says its not in the budget.

[winner45]

ditto/bump that

[TechJunkYard]

It suggests that this article didn't name any.

Thus far, NO article has named any. You have some figures? Bring 'em on!

[TechJunkYard]

Why would you need to dedicate headcount when a simple compliance app like this (one of many available) will do it for you? Keep trying.

Okay, then dedicate that HC to tweak registries and deal with new bugs exposed by the Key Manager.. same diff.

[Bush2000]

Are you honestly suggesting that IT wouldn't have to dedicate headcount to dealing with Linux app bugs?

[Bush2000]

Can't do XP; Boss says its not in the budget.

Why not move to Linux and WINE. If Linux proponents want to put their money where their mouths are, the TCO should (according to them) be lower.

[TechJunkYard]

Where do I suggest that?

[discostu]

So can you build from scratch:
a microwave
a car
a stereo
a chair
a refrigerator
and a desk
?

Do you even know how they all work (chairs and desks are pretty obvious you can skip those)? Or do you just push a button followed by another button and expect the thing to work?

[discostu]

Then you should unplug your refrigerator until you can give us a complete rundown on how a freon system works and how to repair it.

Something the Linux crowd refuses to understand is that for most people computers are appliances, and most people have no freaking clue how the appliances in their life work, and they don't want to. While it might "behoove" people to know these things very few actually do.

[TechJunkYard]

.. for most people computers are appliances, and most people have no freaking clue...

Yeah, but a Windows Admin employed in a support position certainly should.

[Bush2000]

Where do I suggest that?

"Okay, then dedicate that HC to tweak registries and deal with new bugs exposed by the Key Manager.. same diff."

This implies that you think that Windows HC is needed over and above what is necessary to support apps. Which is bogus.

[Bush2000]

Yeah, but a Windows Admin employed in a support position certainly should.

Why should any admin have to know the internal design of code for a particular tool? That's simply a ridiculous requirement.

[rdb3]

While it might "behoove" people to know these things very few actually do.

This sounds like a personal problem to me.

Next.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.

[discostu]

They should know how to fix common problems, oddly enough this does not necessarily entail knowing how it works. How many facilities managers do you know that actually know how the alarm system works? They can turn it on and off, reset it when it starts getting wonky, but can they actually tell you what kind of sensors it uses and how they interface?

[discostu]

So how does your frig work? If you don't know you're not allowed to use it, sorry those are YOUR rules.

[TechJunkYard]

This implies that you think that Windows HC is needed over and above what is necessary to support apps. Which is bogus.

That implies that you think that I think that Windows HC can't handle both tasks. Which is insulting. You're grasping at straws, trying to incite something that isn't there. Stop putting words in my mouth that I don't say.

And go re-read my original post where I observe that you would need some HC to perform Linux self-support.

[Bush2000]

That implies that you think that I think that Windows HC can't handle both tasks.

You're the one who made the distinction. The licensing compliance app is not unlike any other Windows app. IT wouldn't be adversely impacted.

Which is insulting.

Here's a tissue, Tito.

You're grasping at straws, trying to incite something that isn't there. Stop putting words in my mouth that I don't say.

Your argument is that licensing adds significant overhead to IT. Which is simply false.

[TechJunkYard]

Why should any admin have to know the internal design of code for a particular tool?

That's not necessary. But (s)he ought to know what's running on a particular server, and how to check that it's running properly before having to call an 800 number. Otherwise, why is (s)he there?

[TechJunkYard]

Your argument is that licensing adds significant overhead to IT.

It does. $$$$$$$$... not just headcount.

[rdb3]

So how does your frig work? If you don't know you're not allowed to use it, sorry those are YOUR rules.

Try reading comprehension. I said it would behoove the users to know. So what does the word "behoove" mean? It means "advantageous for."

I didn't set any "rules." That's a false argument.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.