[amsalpemkcus]

By Rob Jones at the Gartner Symposium, Cannes [05-11-2002]

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.

[Nimisys]

linux is only free if your time is worthless

[AlbertWu]

so microsoft is now using the argument that apple's been using for ages...


only difference: people will listen this time and belive blindly

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
linux is only free if your time is worthless

exactly. great for those "geeks" that like to sit around and do nothing but fiddle around with their systems instead of doing something "productive."

[Codename]

Originally posted by AlbertWu:
so microsoft is now using the argument that apple's been using for ages...

Apple never had an arguement against Linux, and those arguements they had against Wintel systems pertaining to total cost of ownership were worthless lies.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Codename:
Apple never had an arguement against Linux, and those arguements they had against Wintel systems pertaining to total cost of ownership were worthless lies.

That's some awfully strong language you're using.

Let's see your evidence. There are studies by independent researchers backing up Apple's claims. What backs up yours?

[Codename]

Originally posted by Millennium:

Let's see your evidence. There are studies by independent researchers backing up Apple's claims.

Apple doesn't make worthless claims of TCO anymore. The last time Apple preached lower TCO was in 1997.

What backs up yours?

95% of the computer users in the world.

[The Dude]

Originally posted by Codename:


Apple doesn't make worthless claims of TCO anymore. The last time Apple preached lower TCO was in 1997.



95% of the computer users in the world.

ooOH weLl ThAT EXPLINSANS EVRYTING!!!1!!!!1!!

[Mr. Blur]

Originally posted by Codename:
95% of the computer users in the world.

i sure hope thats not the best response you can come up with.....pretty weak.

[iNub]

YUO WILL SLL BOW DOWN B4 HTE MITE OF MY COMPUTAR!

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Codename:
Apple doesn't make worthless claims of TCO anymore. The last time Apple preached lower TCO was in 1997.

You're just a flaming retard. Why don't you ever post anything to support your claims.

95% of the computer users in the world.

95% of the computer users in the world don't use Windows, if that's what you were getting at.

[Mastrap]

I you keep your users from messing with the system, Linux works fine. True, it takes longer to set up, but once you've got your hardware/software requirements sorted and working it's very, very easy to keep running.

[Subzero Diesel949]

Originally posted by Codename:


Apple doesn't make worthless claims of TCO anymore. The last time Apple preached lower TCO was in 1997.



95% of the computer users in the world.

It's sad that you spend so much time in a Mac forum trying to preach the same recycled hogwash to us.

[Mac Zealot]

Yeah, sure, and it's cheaper to maintain a '76 chevy than it is a 2002 honda civic

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Codename:


Apple never had an arguement against Linux, and those arguements they had against Wintel systems pertaining to total cost of ownership were worthless lies.

Naw actually Apple had proven facts to back those up. MS tried to copy Apple's marketing scheme and failed miserably. Like their latest switch ad.

[Mulattabianca]

There was an article claiming the same $hit in La Repubbblica a month ago. I sent an angry email to the writer.

I have 4 diffrent OS-s of linux. Total price (in some years) : 5 euros = 5 dollars.. that's because i BOUGHT mandrake 9.0 for that price.


Windows cheaper?

When i used it, i spent in media one day and half a month to fix it. backup, AND format, isntall all the stuff back and uninstall all the crap i ddint want to install in it. How much was my time worth??


I have not had problems with Linux.

If i'd have, i'd try asking on linux boards.

And i sure don't format linux once a month. Now formatting ONLY beacause i want to see how is mandrake like. So NO time spent formatting and trying to rescue files.


But Linux supposes you have to understand something of it.

If the users are not particularly expert, and it's not important they know much of computers, i bet Mac is cheaper than Windows.



No microsoft neither on my pc pleazzz ...

[pliny]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
I you keep your users from messing with the system, Linux works fine. True, it takes longer to set up, but once you've got your hardware/software requirements sorted and working it's very, very easy to keep running.

Sounds like Windows.

If there is an IT department where the people know how to tweak and repair the systems, like there is in most larger enterprises, where Windows and Linux are competing in servers and now desktops, why wouldn't TCO of Linux be cheaper than a Windows-based desktop system, since the software is vastly cheaper? The hardware would not be substantially different, since it would be Intel/AMD-based machines they're using.

For MS to say, well, we've looked at this question in our own internal studies, and we've found that systems based on our software are cheaper and better, is pretty worthless, because they can be expected to say exactly this, and especially without any data to back it up, it is even funnier.

As far as 90%+ of the desktop market using Windows software on Intel/AMD machines, and this serving as some sort of guide as to what is the more effective or hassle-free or in-need-of-support platform, what do the users of those systems think? Let's take a quick look at the recent findings by PC World, where they asked 30,000 users about their systems.

The article is called, "You Call This Service? 30,000 readers speak out: PC support remains shaky, and reliability is slipping."

Findings:

Apple topped every system maker in the desktop arena.

The cheaper PCs are cheaper, but their reliability and support, is s.h.i.t.t.y. eMachines, for instance, sells $399 PCs. Until this year, they had a 15 day warranty. 15 days. Why? "Emachines used to employ a VCR strategy in selling PCs," says Michael Zimmerman, Emachines' senior vice president of customer care. "The company thought that if $399 PCs broke, people would throw them away and buy new ones. So we didn't put effort into service and support." They also didn't put any effort into their machines.

Dell, the supposed leader in PC reliability and support, doesn't fare well either, despite their expensive "premium support" and warranties which are supposed to send you new components on failure and offer you fast reliable service. In practice this is a rigamarole based on increasingly s.h.i.t.t.y support with techs who read back to you the same instructions built-in to your OS. Wow! There are also hassles with Dell adhering to the warranty terms, so that it can take weeks to get your new components. And this is from the supposed leader in PC reliability and support.

Any Linux desktop system will be using one of the PC systems discussed in this article. Why wouldn't TCO of Linux be cheaper in an enterprise when the software running on these same machines is way cheaper?

Hell, why wouldn't Mac TCO be cheaper when their support and reliability tops every other? Apple, Mac users, resellers, and many developers for the platform have been saying this for years, and the response from the PC side has always been, well, this is crap, what do you expect zealots to say?

Now that more and more PC magazines are including Apple systems in their surveys, and the findings as to Apple reliability and support are the same as has been said for years and years, what will be the argument against these identical findings?

Go read for yourself.


PC World Feature

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Nimisys:
linux is only free if your time is worthless

Hardly so...

If an IT Professional is a Professional setting up a Linux server is no big deal.

Requires much less intervention, and has a proven track record for reliablilty.


So less licensing costs
Slightly more setup (depending on experience)
Less intervention/mantainance.


It's hands down cheaper than Microsoft products.


The trick is to have an IT professional that actually knows what they are doing.

Just because you know how to run scandisk doesn't make you an IT professional.

So when dealing with idiots for IT, Windows is better. But if you have a serious company and demand reliable, cheap solutions. Get Linux and one good pro on your payroll.

[:XI:]

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.

and by everyone using windows it makes it easier for microsoft to define 'standards'.

and why the hell is the president of europe so damn gullable?

europe has a president?

[Mulattabianca]

I have a mac and a pc.

IE is the only MS thing on my mac. And i odnt like it (but developing stuff i need it).

On pc i have no MS.

Since i dont use windows i dont spend my time formatting.

Linux takes far less time than using windows. And it's free.

So no thank you windows or microsoft on my pc.

[Mac Zealot]

I deleted IE off my mac

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Mac Zealot:
I deleted IE off my mac

I did that years ago.

With Mozilla... .WTF would IE do but waste disk space?

[Sven G]

... The main reason I continue to use IE on the Mac is - besides compatibility - the Scrapbook feature: simply too good! M$ sometimes does really cool things: now, if only their general attitude were equally "cool"...

[flatcatch]

Originally posted by Mulattabianca:
Windows cheaper?

When i used it, i spent in media one day and half a month to fix it. backup, AND format, isntall all the stuff back and uninstall all the crap i ddint want to install in it. How much was my time worth??

Uhh... if you spent that much time then either you have no idea how to use a Windows system or you built a custom PC out of strange components you found on the street. Ok... OR you were incredibly unlucky. Regardless, I have used many PCs for application and system level software development and robotics development and have NEVER had these kinds of problems.

Do I like Windows? Not really. Do I need to re-install Win2000 every 18 months since it grinds to a halt? Yes. But these insane claims of Windows horror hold as much water as pc-zealots claiming the Mac doesn't support web browsing.