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.

[TechJunkYard]

All the facilities managers I've known can operate the system but couldn't begin to wire the beast up, they don't care, that's what the security company is for.

If youse guys can afford to pay him to sit around while a security company wires the place up, you've got money to burn.

My guy tells me exactly which circuit he wants me to use when he's running a new sensor back to the alarm panel in the main building... he knows how many telephone risers we have and how many are dedicated to his stuff... because he's laid all of the cables. AND he has his guys standing by to test the circuit just as soon as I have it punched down.

[HamiltonJay]

Bush2000,

Look we all know you love MS, and you live in Seattle and probably are paid directly or indirectly by them. Hell wouldn't suprise me to find out you are paid to do nothing more than to post MS spin on boards all over the internet and that's your entire job. That's fine, but please. MS is in a tizzy over opensource, because the writing long term is on the wall.. the day of commercial software and operating systems as it exists today is coming to an end. MS is a stagnant company only drawing revenue from its existing products and customers, it has not pushed technology ahead in years, and every attempt to break out of its Core OS/OFFICE has failed miserably. And OFFICE is at the end of its cycle so there is little if any reason to upgrade like MS wants its users to do as often as possible, and its OS in on the same path... hasn't had truly major upgrade of significance since 95.. just hack and add ons, and likely what? 2-3 years before a real upgrade occurs there too, at BEST.

Its not happening overnight, and MS is not going out of business anytime soon, but even the laymen are wising up to the reality. Cost, and stability are prohibitive.. proprietary software, beyond niche markets, cannot compete with effectively run opensource communities.

MS "limited" opensource expirements are like the democrats "targeted" tax cuts. Same mentality as any large company or organization... we know better than you do... it is inherently flawed. These smaller european organizations are actually showing the way... it does not take a genious to say, we want to pick a standard, a standard that ANYONE can use, and free of charge, so information can be shared with everyone, and won't have to deal with them not having a commercial piece of software or that... I can create a CD that contains everything, migrate everythign to that platform and then give away copies of that CD to everyone, and we can all interoperate with no compatibility issues and zero costs going forward. I don't need 500 licenses of OFFICE and 500 licenses of MS 2000 and I don't have to worry about handing a file to a parent who doesn't have OFFICE not being able to read it etc etc... The writing is on the wall... its not going to happen overnight, and MS is certainly not going to go out of business, but the opensource concept is definately going to make MS far less influencial as time goes by. Its simple economics... you can keep pretending and act like IBM in the 80s and think you can dictate the existance of the world... but it won't happen.

[rdb3]

That's why there are experts and people hire them when they need them.

And that's how I make my scrilla. But my point still stands.

No mercy.
Coming soon: Tha SYNDICATE.

[HamiltonJay]

Listening to Linux flacks beating the drum is even worse. Because you can't seem to get over the words "No! And if you ask me again to install Linux, I'm going to fire you!"

hahahaha Good one, just for the record, I have never had to "ASK" to install Linux, I have never been threatened at being fired because of Linux or Any Free UNIX OS (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD etc.. I have used them all). In fact many companies I have worked for, have few if any MS machines at all. So, you keep up the spin, I am sure MS pays you a pretty penny for it.

[Bush2000]

It's clear from my perspective, as both an end user and semi-skilled commercial web site developer, that MS and Linux work best in different environments.

Agree.

That is, even though NT has a good following in the server market, Linux is by far and away the best tool, especially for the Net. No, not just because of viruses/bugs/uptime, but TCO.

How do you define "the Net"? And TCO based on what figures?

[discostu]

Most of the facilities people I've known joined the company after the system was in place, and they've got plenty of other stuff to do, at least that's what they say.

[discostu]

What point? That's what I'm getting at, you don't have one. The standard linux-head BS that people should know how computers work is contrary to how the American public deals with every other appliance we've got. Why should computers be an different?

[discostu]

And of course, getting down to the nitty-gritty of HOW it works, does your facilities guy actually know how a motion sensor works? That's the level of knowledge the linux crowd keeps saying everybody should have about computers. And it's just not happening, and it shouldn't. That's why MS has the marketshare, that's why Linux will probably never have the marketshare, that's why if Liux ever does get the marketshare the faithful will be complaining that they dumbed it down and they'll be using something else.

[Bush2000]

The writing is on the wall... its not going to happen overnight, and MS is certainly not going to go out of business, but the opensource concept is definately going to make MS far less influencial as time goes by. Its simple economics... you can keep pretending and act like IBM in the 80s and think you can dictate the existance of the world... but it won't happen.

I seem to recall guys like Che Guevarra and Kruschev trying to sell the same BS: "We will bury you." The epitaph of both of these losers has been written. You have a helluva nerve saying that MS hasn't "innovated" anything in the past few years, particularly in light of the fact that Linux is a ripoff of Unix and appropriates anything it can get its grubby hands on. Linux only recently added SMP. Nice "innovation" there.

Here's the way I see the future. Windows will continue to thrive and grow on the desktop. And Windows will continue to battle Linux on the server. Linux will make inroads into cheapware accounts that have existing Unix installations. Look at the marketing data: Linux is hurting Sun a helluva lot more than MS. That's precisely why Sun is moving into the lowend x86 server market to stem its market losses. Meanwhile, MS will move increasingly into more vertical business applications (like Great Plains and Siebel: accounting, CRM, etc) where Linux has zero presence -- and probably never will. The future doesn't belong to one OS. It belongs to any OS that fills a need, and I don't see Linux as a one-size-fits-all solution.

[Bush2000]

The standard linux-head BS that people should know how computers work is contrary to how the American public deals with every other appliance we've got. Why should computers be an different?

(Hint: Because then those high-paid admins wouldn't be able to justify the cost of their salaries. That's why)

[TechJunkYard]

Linux only recently added SMP.

Linux has supported SMP since kernel 2.0 dude. That was, like, 1996? Try again.

[ThinkDifferent]

The standard linux-head BS that people should know how computers work is contrary to how the American public deals with every other appliance we've got.

You're right on this, and it's why I don't have high hopes for Linux on the desktop. Developers are understandably more interested in making flashy and infinitely customizable UIs than on "boring" topics like usability and consistency. I hope this changes in future; RedHat might be on the right track with their "Null" desktop unification project.

[Bush2000]

Oooooooh. 1996. Wow. I'm impressed. /SARCASM

[ThinkDifferent]

Linux only recently added SMP. Nice "innovation" there.

Not the best example. Linux has done SMP for many years, and it's only with XP that a consumer OS from Microsoft supports it. And isn't it only enabled in the Pro version?

The future doesn't belong to one OS. It belongs to any OS that fills a need

This is odd, I agree with you.

[TechJunkYard]

1996. Wow. I'm impressed.

So... you're "implying" that W95 was a "recent" release then?

[HamiltonJay]

You have a helluva nerve saying that MS hasn't "innovated" anything in the past few years, particularly in light of the fact that Linux is a ripoff of Unix and appropriates anything it can get its grubby hands on. Linux only recently added SMP. Nice "innovation" there.

Yea, and Windows took the BSD TCP Stack because after a decade they still couldn't write one worth a damn... you really want to get into a morale argument over opensource using public code and then offering it back out the door, v MS taking public code and concepts and then charging for them? Get real, MS exists by "stealing" ideas. Yea, a windowing OS... where did I hear of that before? Oh yea, I remember, PARCS LABS, then APPLE, then MS... so yea... keep lecturing about MS being a moral and innovative company, no ones buying that crap.

Here's the way I see the future. Windows will continue to thrive and grow on the desktop. And Windows will continue to battle Linux on the server. Linux will make inroads into cheapware accounts that have existing Unix installations. Look at the marketing data: Linux is hurting Sun a helluva lot more than MS. That's precisely why Sun is moving into the lowend x86 server market to stem its market losses. Meanwhile, MS will move increasingly into more vertical business applications (like Great Plains and Siebel: accounting, CRM, etc) where Linux has zero presence -- and probably never will. The future doesn't belong to one OS. It belongs to any OS that fills a need, and I don't see Linux as a one-size-fits-all solution.

I have never suggested that Linux or any free OS will "destroy" MS... I have said that opensource, and well run opensource communities will indeed put an end to commercial software as we know it. The niche markets are where proprietary software is destined in the future, (in that we are in agreement), general purpose software being proprietary will become the exception, it will take time, but it will happen.

I don't know if I agree that Linux is the main thing hurting sun, I think the biggest thing that has hurt sun has been the fact they haven't been able to successfully upgrade their main chips since what the UltrsparcII came on the market. Certainly the cost of Solaris has definately not helped... expensive OS is dumb and is also why Solaris is now included with the hardware (it was not always that way).

Secondly there is a GLUT of Solaris hardware out there, and a reduced demand for it, even 2 years into the bust.. so much overcapacity was purchased (and most of it sun servers) that the demand for new stuff is down, particularly new expensive stuff... people are doing what they should have been doing all along, truly evaluating the need. Can I run Linux on a P4 2.8G or AMD XP 2.2 for a cost of well under $1000 or do I do something that truly needs at Sparc? I have been running servers on the x86 OS commercially since 1996, and for what I do they provide more than enough umph. I was among the minority, let me tell you... I know of hundreds of companies and businesses that have hardware so far and above what they need but still bought it because back then no one asked the question if it was needed.

I agree with you, in the desktop market, MS is solid and stable in the US, and its not going to change overnight. The point I am making however is, obvious. Information exchange is the key now, not the OS.. the OS is going to become terciary, like hardware did once the IBM standard was adopted. As this happens, and it will happen, it is unavoidable, the underlying OS becomes less and less of an issue, and when that happens, the idea of paying for an OS becomes almost comical for the average general case user. When nearly all data can be interchanged by nearly all machines, effectively and relatively seamlessly, there is no tolerance for instability or security flaws etc etc.. there is no tolerance for long phone calls on hold waiting for some level 1 support guy for hours, when a message to a newsgroup gets you 10 answers in 10 minutes. Europe has some very good case studies going on now, you cannot deny the power of a government district to go to a free and opensource OS and software. They hand out the CD or have the image on their server for download... now everyone in that community has a common FREE base to exchange information.. no I can't open it because I don't have program X... truly open information exchange with no boundaries. MS cannot offer this, and never will be able to. Now they are small in scale at the moment, but they will grow. The power of that is amazing, not only to the bottom line of the government (no more licensing fees for hundreds or thousands of pieces of software), but in the true free exchange that can occur.

[Bush2000]

Oh yea, I remember, PARCS LABS, then APPLE, then MS... so yea... keep lecturing about MS being a moral and innovative company, no ones buying that crap.

The point is ... everyone borrows ideas from other places. You and the Mac bigots wield this concept like its exclusive to Microsoft. Apple borrowed from Xerox. MS borrowed from BSD. Linux borrowed from everybody. But everybody (including MS) innovates. If you can't even accept that simple truth, you're a hopeless bigot.

I have said that opensource, and well run opensource communities will indeed put an end to commercial software as we know it. The niche markets are where proprietary software is destined in the future, (in that we are in agreement), general purpose software being proprietary will become the exception, it will take time, but it will happen.

Business applications are not "niche markets". Nor will they be. Like Willie Sutton said, "It's where the money is."

Information exchange is the key now, not the OS.. the OS is going to become terciary, like hardware did once the IBM standard was adopted. As this happens, and it will happen, it is unavoidable, the underlying OS becomes less and less of an issue, and when that happens, the idea of paying for an OS becomes almost comical for the average general case user.

For the average user, information exchange is dictated by their choice of file formats. As it stands, MS holds the keys to the most popular file formats and its closest competitors don't provide universal fidelity. And you're kidding yourself if you think that MS is going to stand still on those formats, either. They will evolve over time, and there's no need to open them up since they're already used universally.

[Havoc]

Why should they? Does anyone?

An administrator administers a network. Are you honestly going to sit and tell us that the best way to do that is to have people that know nothing or next to nothing about what it is they're administering? That is the problem many companies out there have now. They have no real security because the people administering are clueless.

[Bush2000]

An administrator administers a network. Are you honestly going to sit and tell us that the best way to do that is to have people that know nothing or next to nothing about what it is they're administering? That is the problem many companies out there have now. They have no real security because the people administering are clueless.

So let's say you use AD to administer your network. What is the protocol that AD uses to communicate? What? You mean you don't know?!? How could you possibly administer such a network? It's unconscionable!!! /SARCASM

[mhking]

Microsnot is still trying to justify it's money-grubbing...Nothing's changed...