Microsoft seems to be the only ones making a big deal about TCO. I read some articles done by organizations not affiliated with MS last year, and they indicated that, all around, Linux was much cheaper. I forgot the actual figures, but the said something like 1 MS administrator for every 4 machines VS. 1 Linux administrator for 10 machines. And, of course, the licensing costs...Linux is nowhere near the cost of MS.
This is what gets me: How can MS stand in front of the whole world and make such a bold statement and expect to be believed? Even more astounding: Why do people believe this statement blindly?
Ken
Levi Bard <levi@bard.sytes.net> wrote:
> OMG,
> Every story/article/editorial I read about businesses doing
> large-scale Linux conversions lately has to mention that inane total
> cost of ownership (TCO) study that MS paid IDC to do last December!
> ("Somecorp, Inc., IT Director Joe Sillyadmin announced last week that
> he planned to switch all his web servers from Windows/IIS to
> Linux/Apache, claiming a projected savings of $600,000 despite last
> year's IDC study which clearly shows that Linux has a much higher TCO
> than Windows) It has been totally and thoroughly debunked! Argh!
A link to the study - of course, the only copy I could find was on
microsoft.com (couldn't even find one on idc.com - hrmph!)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/docs/TCO.pdf
Levi
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:22:56 EDT