This study is broken down into different back-end network costs and asked to more than 1000 North American IT pros what they spend in each area. In four out of five categories, Windows scored between 35 to 50 percent better than Linux for total bucks spent. These areas included file sharing, print serving, network infrastructure, and security.
The fifth category was Web serving, where Linux scored more than 5 percent better than Windows.
Let's face it: Windows 2007/2008 is a far cry from what Windows NT 4 & 2000 was only a couple of years ago. For basic network tasks, including file and print serving, Windows is plug-and-play for most businesses. True, that's because most businesses are running Windows-based clients, but that fact doesn't discount TCO.
Most businesses aren't just running Windows clients, they're now running Windows 2007/2008 or XP Professional clients. File and print sharing in this scenario is not only easy--it's fast. That means fewer man-hours spent tweaking configurations, and less money thrown down the TCO well. Connecting and managing network infrastructure is a similar scenario--I can't think of a single network equipment manufacturer, off the top of my head, who doesn't make a Windows-compatible network management product or a management module to be embedded in Microsoft's MMC console.
Certainly there are configuration issues, but having others work with both Linux and Windows, others who have experienced over the years has clearly shown that Linux takes longer to configure and troubleshoot than Windows. Many of you will quickly counter that Linux servers, once they're configured, generally require significantly less troubleshooting than Windows machines. True. In fact, very true, provided you're running standard Linux installations--but who does that? The whole attraction of Linux is that we can modify its source to suit our needs.
Unfortunately, experience also shows that this is its biggest weakness; the quality of these modifications differ from company to company--and not just the quality of the coding, but especially the quality of documentation, if it even exists. This can make fixing an ailing Linux box time-consuming--and time costs money, especially when you're paying a Linux guru who charges twice as much as an MCSE pro.
The security question
The finding that security costs less on a Windows machine than on a Linux box can only be attributed to man-hours. Only someone smart--and therefore expensive--can manage Linux security. Anybody, on the other hand, can oversee automatic security updates to a Windows XP/VISTA/2007/2008 box. IDC study didn't include server cleanup costs stemming from either security vulnerabilities or a security patch that caused something else to drop dead. There's no way that is cheaper on Windows than it is on Linux--I've almost never seen it happen on a Linux box. Ongoing security costs for Windows can easily reach 15 to 25 percent of TCO. With Linux, it's probably less than 10 percent after initial configuration.
Sure, Linux is far cheaper than Windows out of the gate ($100 off the shelf versus a few thousand dollars in per-client licensing costs). But what really racks up server TCO are the man-hours spent to keep these machines happy and humming. It's no surprise that Windows xp/vista/2007/2008 has gained the upper hand in this category, given how much effort Microsoft has put into the product.
If Linux is to trump Windows, more attention needs to be paid not only to ease of deployment, but, ironically, to security as well. Securing Linux costs less because, for one, it's been a less popular target than Windows server. That's changing, for both malevolent hackers and virus writers.
Accordingly, Linux administrators need to be on security alert like never before, in part because Linux hasn't really concentrated on making security easy. Microsoft, on the other hand, has concentrated on security 100% more in the last year. That means expensive Linux gurus can charge more hours than less expensive MCSE grads. Until Linux distributions improve automation for security administration and overall diagnostics and troubleshooting, Windows will keep its edge in terms of TCO. Unless, of course, Microsoft adopts an even greedier licensing approach.
===============================
Asus is selling the Windows XP model of its Eee PC 900 for a substantially cheaper price than its Linux counterpart!
You don't even need to install it on your system - It will run from the CD
The reason you're asking the wrong question is about market share. Nobody wants to write a virus or worm for a target with less than 10% market share.
but as a developer, linux is more stable, it's also free
For every claim in this blog there is so far, a Linux fanclub that has addressed nothing to what my blog states,
( Windows is cheaper than Linux )!
Linux is free??
What is cheaper?
Free or not free??
(maybe arithmetic is not your strong point)
There in lies the problem with your argument. Whilst there are many self-taught administrators out there the comparable quality for a certified microsoft trained support person is vast and in the end whether your MS certified or have a RH or Debian Badge you should be paying much the same regardless on an hourly basis. Both can be remote updated, and both can be auto update. Pretty much cancels out the support costs see more
Next comes print jobs, where a Linux server cost $107,000 over five years and a Windows server cost $87,000.
In file sharing, Linux cost $114,000 to Windows' $99,000.
In Web site jobs, Linux was less expensive at $31,000 to Windows' $32,000.
Windows is cheaper in the long run.
Seems to be the biggest exercise that these blogs see more
And I agree about the thumbs up.
;)
We all know we Pay more for Honda but with Honda we get what we pay for and much more ....
In the End Honda you hardly see in the garages for repaires Now thats a fact!
* just like a Windows Operating System *!
Now for Honda the ONLY time you see it in the garage is ofr its regualar maintance.
Now Alot of you who cant afford that extra money to dish out for a better name car are stuck to buy a cheaper car like the ford, thats fine but guess who will see more
( In the end its not who you know, its what you know )
Let me refraise that:
How far does the current dollar last?
Im not trying to bash windows and yes I do use it still on one of the desktops. I actually have 3 desktops all up one for each, mac, linux and windows and I probably use the mac and windows more out of the 3. see more
here is the original
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-10532_22-297984.html
this is google cached page... for if he changes the blog.
http://bit.ly/15bjcJ
and this is a link to screenshots of the original post.
http://yfrog.com/181sthalf2px
I dispise plagerism in all its forms... own up Technoman.