By Ina Fried, 27 May 2004 09:25
NEWS Microsoft on Wednesday released the latest in a series of studies it has commissioned that show Windows to be as cheap or cheaper than Linux as part of its "Get the Facts" campaign.
The latest study, conducted by BearingPoint, found that even looking at only the "hard costs" of licensing and support, Windows Server 2003 was often cheaper than Red Hat Enterprise Linux and Novell/SUSE Linux.
"While the acquisition costs associated with licensing and support should be evaluated, this study has found after comparing the cumulative costs within medium and enterprise scenarios over a five-year period that those costs do not significantly differentiate Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 or Novell/SUSE Linux 8," BearingPoint said in the conclusion of its report.
Ina Fried writes for CNET News.com
Comments
There are 12 comments. Join the discussion
1. Matthew C. Tedder
Who is claiming initial purchase price is the most significant factor in a TCO calculation?? Microsoft is putting words in their competitor's mouth.
What enterprise doesn't pay for their initial purchase of GNU/Linux anyway?
The main cost of the GNU/Linux-based solutions cited in these recent TCO studies (those of actual past use) was for scripting. Scripting solutions is for highly customized capabilities and is not necessary to perform the same functionalities as Windows provides.
In other words--it's not comparing apples to apples. They are paying more for Linux to do more... because it can. Note that most of them say they did not choose Linux on the basis of cost.
Also, Free Software refers to *Freedom*--the fact that you do not necessarilly have to pay for a copy is beside the point in the enterprise market.
Matthew
2. Greg Strockbine
these studies just amaze me. An expensive product from a 50 billion dollar company is less expensive than something I can download free from the internet? From my own experience I find the free product easier to administer, with helpful documentation and user groups all over the net.
3. anonymous
There are thousands of Micro Softheads that are really scared of Linux. Not the least because they, at least the technology aware, know that Linux is superior in many ways compared to any system. Linux has had during the past years and still has a plethora of features that Micro Softheads have never heard of.
A Linux-shop does not need as many administrators as Windows does! How come? The reason is simple. Once you install a system you can more or less forget it. No Virus, no worms or small creeps a like.
With Windows you only get the pure and plain OS. Nothing else! When you download a Linux distro you get for the most part 3-4 CDs full of utilities. Firewall is installed by default e.t.c.
I can go on for hours with the list of Linux benefits compared to Windows of any flavour. Why not install a distribution? Mandrake Linux would be suitable for a beginner. Use it and learn and then talk!
/K
---
4. Simon
I agree with Matthew, the free is as in freedom, not in pound notes. We are just rolling out a new system based on 'free' software, and it certainly is not costing nothing in financial terms. But what I am learning is that in technological terms, it was by far the 'right' choice for us.
We run a mixed environment, and it's becoming more and more clear that the the MS strategy is to lock in people who are drawn by the appearance of 'easy integration' (like sailors to the Sirens) - only later do they find out that this ease of integration with MS products comes at the cost of having no further options than to do what MS say, when they say to, and how they say to do it. The more I find out about what Active Directory does 'in the background', the more frightening it is.
Need I mention monoclonal systems and the Irish potato famine ? Or in modern terms, Netsky
5. rams
Who sponsored the study?
Right, Microsoft ;-)
I don't trust studies sponsored by involved parties.
6. A Townsend
Why isn't the title of this 'Microsoft funded study ...' It is difficult for any research outfit that is hired by a company to be totally unbiased about that companies product. Also, the text of this article seems to suggest that the same study that backs up Linux not cheaper, states there is not significant cost difference. /boggle
7. Optimizer
One crash of any Microsoft environment
in any enterprise can destroy your time table for meeting deadlines.
Perhaps that is why much of the corporate world, the NYSE, Merrill - Lynch, and Fortune 1,000's, have already switched to GNU/Linux, despite all the FUD that foru-time-convicted FELON Microsoft can generate!
Who uses Linux?
Start the list with MICROSOFT's use of 15,000 Linux cache servers!
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030827/152/e6yxh.html
Then, add 65 national governments,
the corporate world:
Toyota, BMW, Chrysler-Benz
Ford EU...
http://linux.bryanconsulting.com/stories/storyReader$45
8. john bourne harbour
the enterprise side is not really the issue here-- and this is what should really have microsoft nervous-- it is the user side-- why should i use microsoft products when i can download new systems as they come out for free-- as more users become educated with linux the same users will be demanding linux in the work place as-- sorry bill, it was fun while it lasted but i really do like the gnome footprint--
9. anonymous
Funny how the Linux bigots have stopped talking about Munich! If ever there was a case study in how Linux costs you far more than Windows, Munich is it! It is going to be instructive when the true Munich story becomes public, then the backlash will begin...
10. anonymous
I understand that the cost of TRAINING people to use Linux/UNIX-based systems may be rather exorbitant, but initial TCO *just* on the software is way smaller than for Win 2k3 Server.
Windows 2003 Server (Enterprise edition, with 25 Client Access Licenses): $3,999
RedHat Enterprise AS (Standard): $1,499
Um. Also, with RedHat- no CAL limitations. Hum. Now.... WHICH COSTS LESS? Besides, out of the box, Red Hat comes shipped with a boatload of software. With Win2k3 server, it's just the server and a few support apps.
Right... Am I supposed to be impressed, Microsoft?
And I like the irony that MS have to use Linux servers because THEIR software is so *naff*.
11. Herman de Jongste
It is not about Linux being cheaper (or more expensive) then Microsoft. It is all about choice. We don't all drive the same cars and some are cheap and some are expensive. Microsoft should accept that there is a growing alternative (and maybe more Operating Systems will sprout). Microsoft should spend its money on improving its products in stead off trying to spend money trying to knock this competition. This is how an open market works and there must be room for choice. If Ford had been successful in preventing competition we'd still be driving in black T-fords. Competition stimulates innovation and is usually the best way to ensure that a good product is brought to the market.
12. anonymous
Perhaps a little history is in order. How many here remember the 1980's when the PC became available. Intel's early architectures were considered "toys", not up to the challenges of "serious" computing. At that time, MicroSoft was the challenger with DOS, then Win3.1, etc. What happened over the next 20 years was effectively a revolution in computing. Why? One might suggest this was due to the availability of the platform to the Individual. Price barriers were broken, creativity increased as more became involved with the technology. Again, why? Because they could!!!
Now we witness the lines again being drawn. This time Microsoft is on the other side of the fence, playing protectionist politics, ignoring the best interests of the future.
Linux will remove boundries, as the PC ultimately did in the 80's. Linux will create a true "world" product. All that can come from this in the long run is something far better than we currently know. Will it be painless? Probably not. Was it painless to get through the politics between Loyal Mainframers and The Distributed Architects born from the PC era? I witnessed that battle first hand, sided with the PC architectures and watched a wonderful evolution occur. I consider myself fortunate to have the opportunity to witness the evolvution of the next computing revolution.