Study: Windows Can Be Cheaper to Use Than Linux

Reuters ^ | September 9, 2003

[Leroy S. Mort]

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Developing Windows-based applications is easier and cheaper than making Linux-based applications, according to a study paid for by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) and released on Monday.

The world's largest software maker, which is facing increased competition from Linux -- the open-source software standard that can be copied and modified freely -- hired Giga Research, which found that licensing, associated software, maintenance, labor, and training was 25 percent to 28 percent cheaper on Windows for certain types of applications.

The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW.O) favored by the Linux community.

Web-based applications are seen as the next step in computing that will allow software and services to be widely available on a variety of devices, not just personal computers.

For large companies, the cost of making and deploying applications on Microsoft's .NET standard was $1.64 million over a three-year period, 28 percent less than the $2.29 million cost for running or J2EE/Linux, according to the study.

For medium-sized companies, costs for .NET-based applications totaled $661,012, compared with $881,445 for J2EE/Linux.

"The primary conclusion of the study is that Microsoft offers a substantial cost advantage over J2EE/Linux as a developer platform for the applications considered," Forrester Research Inc., which owns Giga Research, said in a report by analysts John Rymer and Bob Cormier.

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks.

[Leroy S. Mort]

Ever feel like throwing a firecracker in the middle of a bunch of sleeping penguins? Bwaaaaaaaaack !!

[TomGuy]

according to a study paid for by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O)

No bias there, of course.

[Leroy S. Mort]

There's been a lot of discussion about this even in the Linux-friendly press. See The real cost of switching to Linux in InfoWorld. As with every other IT decision, it's not a no-brainer.

[patj]

ping

[TomGuy]

The main issue, then, now, and in the future is compatibility.

I remember working with software in the 1980's when MS was a minor player. The complaint against MS was its incompatibility in business software. WordPerfect and WordStar, for example, dominated the market. Each also allowed conversion of documents to the other format. Word (a minor player at the time) did not. Customers complained vigorously and MS gave in and added conversion filters. Thereafter, MS started gaining significantly because their products--Word, Excel, Access--integrated better (duh!) with Windows than did the "outsider" programs.

If Linux can develop cross-compatibility, they could become a viable challenge to MS/Windows. Unix didn't take MS seriously years ago, and Unix has almost become a byword. Apple/Mac, similar. Until "those other" OS's started becoming more PC (i.e., Windows) friendly, they nearly went the way of Commodore, TRS-80, Adams, and a dozen other starters in the early pc/computer market who closed up shop long ago.

Incompatibility just doesn't fly in the general business world today.

[Glenn]

integrated better (duh!) with Windows than did the "outsider" programs.

Does that have anything to do with MicroSoft having the insider scoop on the OS?

[TomGuy]

Oh yes. In the early/mid 90's there were a lot of criticisms of MS for "hiding" code, etc., from outside developers. Talk about monopoly now, it was massive 10 years ago.

Many "competitive programs" to the MS product line seemed to have glitches and lock ups that didn't occur in the MS product line. Strange, huh (lol).

[observer5]

"Microsoft released a study...

That should give you a clue!

[doosee]

Gideon gonna guarantee his gig gets the green!!!!!!! From Microsoft

[Wonder Warthog]

"Thereafter, MS started gaining significantly because their products--Word, Excel, Access--integrated better (duh!) with Windows than did the "outsider" programs."

Not true. The reason was the "package deal" including Word, Excel, and Powerpoint in one "package"--which was a masterstroke of marketing. Up to that point, one had to get word processing from WordPerfect, spreadsheet from Lotus, and presentation software from Harvard Graphics. And none of those worked well with the others.

[At _War_With_Liberals]

Many "competitive programs" to the MS product line seemed to have glitches and lock ups that didn't occur in the MS product line. Strange, huh (lol).

Lotus 123

[TomGuy]

Yes, it was true. MS got a lot of complaints and Word, for example, was the lagging behind WP, WS, Multimate. Businesses refused to buy Word. Biggest complaint against Word--lack compatibility with the other programs.

When MS made it more compatible (ver 2.0), Word was able to start overtaking the market. MS issued special "compatibility conversion" add-ons to accomplish this. Of course, Word was helped when WP sold out to -- that network software co (name escapes me). That network co didn't fully support its own WordPerfect, so WP nosedived until WP was sold to Corel who has been trying to resurrect it.

[Poohbah]

Developing Windows-based applications is easier and cheaper than making Linux-based applications, according to a study paid for by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT.O) and released on Monday.

I am utterly unsurprised that the report said this...

[twntaipan]

This article ought to be like red-meat-to-hungry-rotweiller for the Linux dudes. Attack!

[Poohbah]

I have WordImPerfect 11.0 from Corel.

IIRC, WordImPerfect was sold to Novell, who immediately tried to ax-murder it. They either didn't support it, or they supported it in the manner that Hillary Clinton supported Vince Foster.

[AppyPappy]

Absolute crap considering the time I have spent chasing down viruses.

[Poohbah]

BTW, WordImPerfect 11.0 isn't bad.

[TomGuy]

I've been tempted to try Linux. Looking at their homepage and the release of 4.0, it does look interesting.

If I were still in the work environment, however, my concern would be the cross-compatibility issue. I used to work with literally thousands of files of documents and graphics in various formats. I had to intermix selections from them at times, so compatibility was primary issue.

For a home user or small business, where external file compatibility is not an issue, Linux seems to have all the necessary programs: Wordprocessing, presentation, spreadsheet, internet browser, email, checkbalancing, etc.

[Leroy S. Mort]

Put Norton and Windows on automatic update. I haven't had a virus in years.

[TomGuy]

Right, it was Novell.

I used WP in the mid 80's (DOS environment) and early Windows 3.0 version. I ran rings around any existing wordprocessing program until Novell got hold of it. It was too bad. WP was the best.