A new story released by Reuters had the headline:

Microsoft-Based Servers Cheaper to Run than Linux

Here are some of the highlights:

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.