M$ Admits Linux is Cheaper...

Hey All,

It might not be Gates, but its close enough. CEO Steve Ballmer admitted that Microsofts product, Windows, is in fact not more affordable then Linux...

"Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer....conceded that Windows marketing campaigns against Linux that state that Windows is cheaper than Open Source versions of Linux wouldn't be possible. Specifically, Ballmer stated that Microsoft had not figured out a way to make its products less costly than Linux, and that the company would have to rework its traditional "we're cheapest" marketing approach to emphasize the added values of the Windows operating system given the price customers have to pay..."

Source: http://geek.com/news/geeknews/2002Ju...0718015464.htm

No kidding LOL last thing I did at the job I no longer have is upgrade one server and Exchange total cost including third party programs to deal with W2k was 34k for 50 users. Thanks for the info, and I think they cannot figure out how to make windows less expense is that they cannot buy or own the OS....:)

Um, talk about obvious! Geez, that much has been known since the first commercial windows version seeing as how there are so many free linux systems! Why did they have to admit this? It doesn't make sense, everybody already knows linux is cheaper.

Oh my my is this a poor poor MS thing me thinks the bubble is bursting at MS I'm sure body parts have got to be puckering at MS. No one wants to pay them to turn on their computer go figure! LOL :)

Looks like M$ has finally come to grips with reality, and that is the understatement of the century to boot. While M$ is the norm in the marketplace right now (and will be for quite some time, let us all be honest here), they are trying so hard to keep an iron grip as the bona fide desktop/server OS by slinging BS all over the place and they are realizing the tactic is not working because the public is starting to look elsewhere for a lower cost and more stable solution especially in the larger networks. No matter how hard M$ tries with the struggle for the lion's share of the marketplace, it will NEVER ever be cheaper than the open source arena.

Why will it never work? With the licensing scheme as restricitive and expensive as it is, unless they drastically change it or move over to a "install as many copies as you want on your network" scheme, it will never be cheaper. Let us look at some facts in the matter:

1) If M$ were to lose the per-seat/per-server licensing scheme, it will lose a great percentage of revenue from many fronts, and Bill Gates and his shareholders do not like the idea of stocks of depreciating in value.

2) Anti-piracy will have no reason to pursue softilifters any more and XP/.NET softrware will have to strip the activation routines (everybody say, "hallelujah" if that ever goes through but I would not hold my breath). That means no more money from settlements by "watchdogs" that go in and do the audits on large companies and slam with gigantic fines and even jail time.

Man, M$ is useful and has its strong points, but I am so tired of the marketing bullsh*t! Let us just hope *NIX addresses the little problems that is holding it back; then my friends, it will be a force to be reckoned with...

I think MS will lost the war Win vs. Linux in 4-7 years (I'm expecting faster). :thumbsup:

Those prices, licensing and insecurity sux many peole. They (MS) are losing too many clients to compete with opensource.

You may disagree, this is just my personal opinion. ;)

I am afraid I don't understand two things.
1. What is the point of saying something everybody knows? The average user knows XP which is $300+ is more expensive than red hat which is $40. Why did they say that? It makes no sense.
2. How is that newsworthy? Must have been a slow news day because it makes no sense to write an article about this.

khakisrule, it's the fact that M$ finally admits it that makes it interesting. Of course it's stupid and not news-worthy! It's like the big elephant in the living room MS pretends is not there... it's simply amazing how it could finally be talked about now.

OK...we can't compete with free, but you got to look at TCO (total cost of ownership) over the lifespan of the product, you'll find Windows is more effective, reliable and easy to use, hence making it cheaper to use than Linux. BWAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Get a clue, Steve and Bill...you can compete....make your (snicker) OS open-scource. Maybe that way it will become the quality product it should be.

Alittlebitnumb> True that MS has the upper hand at this time for having the grip on the market, but it's true that, like an old saying says: "The thighter they firm their grip, the more clients slip away through the cracks" (paraphrased for this)

This event isn't big news as like an earthquake hit japan and 300 are dead, it more like news that MS realized the obvious like alittlebitnumb said. Try telling someone a solid, supported, world known fact (ie: Neil Armstrong landed on the moon, Holocaust, Millenium, WWII) but will believe it not until the ends of earth. Then try telling them, yet again, (definition of insanity: to repeat the same process, but expect a different result (which none appears)) yet, finally getting through the thick skull of the person and getting them to say: Oh... now I see it!"

That, my friend, is why this is news....