MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Richar » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:19:14


Found this Microsoft ad in a computer magazine recently. It brought
to mind Twain's quote: "There are lies, there are damned lies, and
then there are statistics."

"Weighing the cost of Linux vs Windows. Let's review the facts.

Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows
Server 2003 in a recent study. The study, audited by leading
independent research analyst META Group, measured costs of Lunix
running in IBM's z900 mainframe for Windows-comparable functions of
file serving and Web serving..."

There's a little chart there that shows the cost per Mbps for "One
Linux image running on two z900 mainframe CPUs" at $415, vs "One
Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900 Mhz Intel Xeon CPUs" at
$40.

I kept looking for the only meaningful comparison--Linux vs Windows
Server 2003 on the same hardware--but I didn't see it anywhere.

--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by os » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:34:20


"There are lies, there are damned lies, and
then there are statistics"

I think this covers all 3 don't you?

Mark
--
Proudly bought to you by the letters O & S & the number 2.

 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Peter Klma » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 08:42:03


Well, I guess if one looks *real* hard, one could find something about
Windows running on IBM z-Series. Too bad that TCO for windows is just near
infinity on those


Nope. That would be the fourth one - MS TCO studies
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Form follows malfunction.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Bob Tennen » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 09:04:45


> Found this Microsoft ad in a computer magazine recently.
>
> "Weighing the cost of Linux vs Windows. Let's review the facts.

Did they acknowledge that Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds? These
mega-corporations seem to think that mere mortals like Linus don't have
"intellectual property rights" like, well, like mega-corporations. Or
maybe they think the expensive "licence" they got from The SCO Group
gives them the right to use "linux" without acknowledging the trademark.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Keit » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 14:34:10


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Lunix?

http://www.yqcomputer.com/

--
Best Regards, Keith http://www.yqcomputer.com/
Hobby Radio Group http://www.yqcomputer.com/
AOL IM: kilowattradio
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by pete » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 18:49:50


"Lunix"???

Was this actually in the ad or is it your typo?

--

Peter
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Richar » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:08:50


XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote...


LOL. Must...get...more...sleep.

--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Billy O'Co » Sat, 28 Feb 2004 23:43:22

Richard < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

LOL, I thought you were talking about:

http://www.yqcomputer.com/
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by ray » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:18:16


Where in hell do you get win2k3 server for $40??
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Billy O'Co » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 01:45:20

"ray" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


You don't. micros~1 is calculating the cost per Megabits per
second. Laughably, they would have gotten the Mbps even *lower* for
windows if they had used faster Xeons, but they wanted to match the
"900"'s to lend credibility to their ridiculous "study". Very
deceptive numbers game, to wit:

Linux ... two z900 ... CPUs" at $415

Windows ... two 900 ... CPUs" at $40.

See how it looks like an even test at a glance? Does anyone really
think micros~1 chose 900 mhz Xeons for any other reason than that?
An IBM z900 is a massive beast, with water pipes sticking out of it!
Of course it's more expensive than a 3 year old PC. micros~1 has
really shown their dishonesty in full light with this "study". BTW,
a z900 can support 800,000(yes, that's eight hundred thousand)
concurrent users. Can that little PC do that? I wonder. Can
windows do it? I know it cannot for a fact.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by chris » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 02:17:22


Wow. Somebody's got too much time on their hands...
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by The Onion » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:42:29

Billy O'Connor sighed and said:


This is really worthwhile.

I'm gonna get my C64 out of retirement and put it to some proper use.

--
Ian

I fought Windows from 95 to 2000.
It beat me every time.
That's why I use Linux.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Billy O'Co » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:43:28

The Onion Man < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


Oh, please do. I don't have one anymore, and I'd love to hear a report.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by acamfiel » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 05:49:38

Didn't I see that in Dr. Dobbs? I had already decided not to renew my
subscription because of all the C# articles they were running and this
only made me sure I had made the right decision.

Maybe if enough of us drop the magazines that carry this garbage,
they'll get the message. Or at least M$ will have to pay a lot more to
pick up the slack. But with $53 billion in spare change laying around,
I don't guess it would bother M$ that much.
 
 
 

MS ad: "Linux 10x more expensive than Win2003 Server"

Post by Richar » Sun, 29 Feb 2004 06:39:53


XXXX@XXXXX.COM wrote...

That's too funny!

It's like those guys announcing the lastest version of CPM. "DOS-
Killer," they called it.

--
"Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth