Posted on 09/11/2003 8:29:07 AM PDT by Leroy S. Mort
Only Microsoft users on older versions of its desktop operating systems are likely to get any benefit from migrating to Linux, according to a new report by Gartner.
The report said the operating system and PC represent less than a third of the total cost of ownership and that migration should only be considered in a few situations. Michael Silver, VP and research director at Gartner, said in a statement that other costs such as labor, training and external services should be taken into account.
He said organizations should compare the costs and savings of a move to Linux with the cost and savings to upgrade to a newer version of Windows as the total cost of ownership will vary depending on which version of Windows is being considered, according to Gartner. "Enterprises running Windows 95 will likely see more benefits by a move to Linux than will enterprises using Windows 2000 or Windows XP. Windows 2000 and Windows XP include more modern technology than Window 95 and are generally more stable and incur lower costs,” said Silver.
Gartner revealed that while Linux has had success in the server market reducing costs, the same savings cannot be achieved on the desktop.
David Smith, VP and Gartner fellow, said in a statement: "Many servers are dedicated to running a single application; in many cases, it has been relatively easy for enterprises to replace specific servers, such as a web server, and implement Linux."
But the environment for Linux on the desktop is significantly different, he said.
"For those users, migration costs will be very high because all Windows applications must be replaced or rewritten," said Smith.
The report comes in the same week that a Microsoft-sponsored survey of just 12 companies claimed firms could save up to 28 per cent by developing certain programs with Windows rather than Linux.
I'm guessing he means in-house applications here, not Office-type suites, etc.
Isn't Microsoft pushing for those apps to be written/rewritten in .NET anyway? So how is it an added cost if Microsoft is pushing for migration to its .NET paradigm? I think a more accurate assessment would be achieved by comparing the cost of converting to where Microsoft wants those apps to go, .NET, versus Linux and Java or whatever.
IOW Windows is broken out of the box.
Apple works out of the box.
Linux works out of the box.
EcomStation/Server works out of the box.
Windows still crashes after you download the 10 patches waiting to be downloaded.
In my experience, those that have no problems with windows 1) think regular os crashes are normal, 2) use it for little more than e-mail, and 3) think Rush Limbaugh is a computer guru.
Don't forget to add in the costs your now incurring in testing patches, doing critical updates, and rolling all this out.
I would imagine Slammer and the IE patch cost a pretty penny. If you're using SQL Server, you have a whole nest of security costs.
Sure there's security with any OS, but MS leads the pack by a very large amount.
Because you won't HAVE to rewite 'em to have 'em run on Windows 2010 (or whatever). If you want 'em on Linux, you betcha they've gotta be rewritten. Not a difficult concept. We're talkin' desktop apps here.
Yes a difficult concept. I think you are a bit ignorant of where Microsoft and RIAA are taking you. The new file system in Longhorn is encrypted, look up DRM. Already, Exchange Server and a lot of other products are not forward compatible. Office 2003 requires 2003 server for full implementation. Backward compatibility is no longer guaranteed - the same way DOS was moved aside.
Well, since I'm running Longhorn Alpha on my test box, I'd beg to differ.
The new file system in Longhorn is encrypted, look up DRM. Already, Exchange Server and a lot of other products are not forward compatible. Office 2003 requires 2003 server for full implementation. Backward compatibility is no longer guaranteed - the same way DOS was moved aside.
Explain exactly how this prevents me from running a legacy Win98 app for example.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.