Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper than Linux

Printable View

December 3rd, 2002, 02:32 PM
roswell1329

Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper than Linux

A new story released by Reuters had the headline:

Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper to Run than Linux

Here are some of the highlights:

Quote:

SEATTLE (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp. MSFT.O , fearful of being undercut in the market for server software by free offerings based on Linux, on Monday released the results of a sponsored study that concludes Windows 2000 is generally cheaper for businesses to run and support.

Operating a server based on Linux free software ends up costing businesses more than Windows server software, the study commissioned by the software giant and released by IDC said.
...
The study, conducted earlier this year, surveyed IT managers from 104 North American companies on the total money spent on Linux- and Windows-based server systems.
...
For example, in order to support 100 full-time users over a five year period on a networking server, Linux-based systems cost $13,263 versus $11,787 for Microsoft, the IDC study said.

Similar differences emerged for file, printing and security servers, but for Web servers, which host and manage Internet sites, Microsoft systems cost $32,305 while Linux systems cost $30,600, the study showed.

Among the other factors included in the report are hardware costs as well as the costs involved when servers fail.

Some things in here strike me as rather odd. First of all, this was a study sponsored by Microsoft. Right there I get a little suspicious of what I'm about to hear. From my old statistics class I seem to remember that you can paint just about any picture you want with any given set of data. Numbers are totally meaningless unless they're presented by a non-invested, non-interested third party.

The second thing that bothered me was that this study talked about the cost of supporting a Windows 2000 server versus a Linux server over 5 years. Um...5 years? That would take us back to 1997. Was Windows 2000 out in 1997? I seem to have missed the unveiling.

I also think its humorous that Microsoft reported that Linux was cheaper to run a web server off of than a Microsoft server. I'd be willing to bet that's because they included the cost when the servers fail...or are compromised.

Anyway, just thought you'd be interested to see that Microsoft is still trying.
December 3rd, 2002, 02:41 PM
Spyder32

Heh, might be cheaper but Microsoft's server SURE as hell aren't more secure. Price is a big difference, but you gotta see what's better and what will actually do the job.
December 3rd, 2002, 02:59 PM
the_JinX

well, nice study, but this unbiased report says something completely different.

By the way the above is a Total Cost of Ownership study, not some cheap "Windows costs money, linux doesn't" scamm..

Quote:

source: http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/...comparison.pdf

In late 2001, Cybersource undertook a study into the differences in licence costs between Linux and Open Source software on the one hand, and Microsoft's operating systems and applications on the other. That research is available in a whitepaper linked to here: http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/...comparison.pdf

We received much feedback from readers seeking a determination of the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) figures, rather than just the initial licence costs. While it is difficult to qualitatively analyse all of the total cost of ownership factors at play, it is possible to produce a reasonable first pass quantitative estimate for the instantiation and operation of a network and computer workstation infrastructure for a small to medium organisation, to highlight the TCO differences between these two competing platforms.
December 3rd, 2002, 06:07 PM
roswell1329

Quote:

Originally posted here by the_JinX
well, nice study, but this unbiased report says something completely different.

By the way the above is a Total Cost of Ownership study, not some cheap "Windows costs money, linux doesn't" scamm..

Unbiased? The document you referenced above looks to me like it is very biased towards Linux. Even though I, personally, am biased towards Linux and Open Source myself, I will defend Microsoft with regard to that document. To begin with, they are only performing a cost analysis on the setup of a Linux environment versus a Windows environment. This isn't really a sufficient enough examination of the Total Cost of Ownership for open-source products versus Microsoft products. You must take into account their reliability, support structure, and personnel required to maintain the products. Another inconsistency occurs in their Windows Platform Solution list of back-office products and productivity tools. They list the Microsoft Commerce Server (which includes the SQL Server) and then they list the Microsoft SQL Server as a seperate cost. Finally, all the Appendices are screenshots of Linux products with captions like:

Quote:

Many Windows users will be familiar with most of the menus icons and launch bar items found on current Linux systems.

I think they might be a little biased. :bigsmile:
December 3rd, 2002, 06:52 PM
Chuck56

I haven't read the second report yet, but the *five* year range of the first caught my eye immediately. I'm terrible at math but, as Roswell said, that takes us back to 1997. I'm pretty sure 1997 came before 2000. If I'm right, the whole study in regards Win 2000 is invalidated.

I'm rather skeptical of any study or poll conducted by a specific organization. They're paying the money and the organization taking the poll knows where their bread and butter is coming from. It figures that the results will be skewed in favor of the company, party, or person hiring them.
December 4th, 2002, 07:40 AM
cwk9

Reading reports funded by Microsoft always makes me laugh. Yes if your staff is incapable of learning Linux and you don’t upgrade for 5 years then it just might be better to fill a wheelbarrow with cash and take it to m$. The more people become skilled with Linux the lower those numbers will get while m$ licenses will keep going up.
December 12th, 2002, 02:30 PM
the_JinX

While surfing lwn.net I found a piece with a couple of links about this study..

Thought it'd bring some "other perspective" to this thread..

http://www.zdnet.com/techupdate/stor...901156,00.html

and

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,,755327,00.asp
December 12th, 2002, 04:36 PM
eSoTeRiK

I believe this study also referrenced not upgrading the OS for 5 years also. I don't have the URL for the article, but I think that is correct. The way M$ is pushing out new versions of their P(OS), I don't see companies being able to keep an OS for 5 years and still get any kind of support.

This is where the cost savings are going into the dumper, IMHO.

I agree with roswell1329 in that the Linux article is biased, but not many articles aren't these days. I would rather use Linux than Windows anyday, but unfortunately most corporate sites think they need a windows client to run their apps.
December 12th, 2002, 07:35 PM
Chuck56

I'm not that familiar with Linux. I'm learning on an old version of Slack, which runs on an old 486 and through which we're networked. Anyway, I have a question regarding Windows and Linux servers.

Company A switches to Linux today. Company B upgrades to the newest MS. In five years, linux will have improved from the current kernel to maybe kernel 3.0 let's say, while in company B MS will be who knows where.

Microsoft will require company B to upgrade for $$$ to keep support. Considering that linux is so stable and versatile, is there really a reason to move up, other than to stay current?
December 12th, 2002, 10:00 PM
eSoTeRiK

Company B will have to upgrade to keep support on the M$ OS, while Company A CAN upgrade if it wishes. Company B will have to pay $$$ for the new OS, while Company A doesn't have to pay anything - except for support if it desires.

I'm counting on most applications pushing towards the Browser arena. This is exactly why M$ killed Netscape and a company and is still trying to kill the browser. I have just seen 2 different applications at my company go from a win32 app to browser. 2 down, 158 to go.

With the advent of applications being delivered via browser and other applications being java based, it negates the need for a win32 platform to run the apps - although it is still an option for those who like the interface.
December 13th, 2002, 12:09 AM
spyrul

just to point out, the long-term TCO of a Linux server is sometimes more than that of a Windows one, mostly only because it would cost more to hire someone who knows Linux over the dime-a-dozen Windows net admins.

otherwise, a Linux server should cost less.
December 13th, 2002, 01:49 AM
bofhandpfy

Quote:

Originally posted here by spyrul
--- [SNIP] --- only because it would cost more to hire someone who knows Linux over the dime-a-dozen Windows net admins.

otherwise, a Linux server should cost less.

HeHeHeHe

As someone who administers Windows networks I resent that comment. tee hee

I'll have you know I have to work twice as hard as the average *NIX admin, what with running round having to babysit all those "feature" packed Windows boxes.
December 13th, 2002, 04:40 AM
spyrul

Quote:

Originally posted here by bofhandpfy

HeHeHeHe

As someone who administers Windows networks I resent that comment. tee hee

I'll have you know I have to work twice as hard as the average *NIX admin, what with running round having to babysit all those "feature" packed Windows boxes.

eh, don't really worry about it. as it is, my experience in Linux is very limited.

however, at my college, my net admin is an avid Linux user, and although he's got limited experience with Windows operating systems (strange, i think), he's gotta run around and "babysit" all the windows boxes at school.

but i'll agree, a lot of net admins are relatively lazy, but... hell, isn't that what the job's all about? :)