~pcwiz Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 OK, starting off, not everyones gonna think this is funny at all but here goes.. I dunno if anyone has noticed but Microsoft has made a new section in their Windows Server site comparing Linux to Windows Server. On the home page, there is a few statements from cities, companies, etc. saying how much Windows Server is better than Linux. Heres what the State of Illinois said: "We can’t take big risks with our technology. State government needs trusted, tested technology that’s reliable and predictable. Our [Microsoft] solution is saving us $10.5 million over five years in software costs alone." — Paul Campbell, former Director, Illinois Department of Central Management Services Come on...Microsoft technology saving them $10.5 million in software solutions over Linux I find this funny because Linux (if it costs anything) is way cheaper than Windows in terms of OS and plus, unless you are running a Enterprise server, Linux software solutions won't cost you anything. And the Linux software that does cost money costs way less than the Windows equivalents. Even if Microsoft has improved reliability in Server products, Linux is still rock hard for server operations. Sure, Windows Server may be more user friendly than SOME versions of Linux but unless you're a n00by network administrator, you should be able to manage a Linux network just fine. Lets take a poll on this..Who agrees that this is funny and unreasonable and who does not. If you have an opinion about this, please share it. EDIT: If you wanna see the Windows Server vs. Linux page Microsoft made: http://www.microsoft.com/getthefacts PCWiz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 This has always been the main argument used for Linux vs MS server products, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). The argument is that Linux costs more in support and maintenance. Whether this is true or not is debatable, but my guess is that Paul Campbell or the state of Illinois doesn't really know or hasn't really evaluated this but are repeating what someone else has told them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ayanami Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Poor little people didn't have that pretty little GUI. Why have functionality when you can deal with crashing software and poorly designed interfaces that look shiny?Actually, I should clarify that I'm mocking XP's GUI....I kinda like Vistas....=( Vista's actually adds some functionality even if it stole a {censored} ton from Linux and OS X Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 I still don't get how they save $10.5 million over Linux in software costs :hysterical: I mean, if they saved $10.5 million in hardware costs, though still not reasonable, it is possible to believe because sometimes Linux hardware costs more money to maintain...but software... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I may have interpreted this wrong, Mr. Campbell only said that MS Server was saving them money. Not that it was cheaper than Linux Servers. Maybe the "Microsoft Solution" they have now is cheaper than what they used to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 9, 2007 Author Share Posted September 9, 2007 The page is a page that compares Windows Server to Linux. I'm pretty sure that it means that MS Server is saving them $10.5 million over a Linux solution. See the page for yourself: www.microsoft.com/getthefacts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 I still don't get how they save $10.5 million over Linux in software costs That's my point, someone told them that number. Somewhere someone has decided that a Linux solution will require more costly support, whether it be more administrators, more maintenance, or more paid support from say Redhat, Suse, etc. Often these kinds of numbers are so arbitrary they can be marketed and slanted however you want. (Both for and against Linux or Windows) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 10, 2007 Author Share Posted September 10, 2007 Thats what I think. Microsoft probably paid the State of Illinois lots of money to make the statement and to use Windows Server Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apowerr Posted September 10, 2007 Share Posted September 10, 2007 Thats what I think. Microsoft probably paid the State of Illinois lots of money to make the statement and to use Windows Server I don't understand why Windows Server is so laughable.. Sure, the idea of proprietary software being cheaper than free software may be humorous, but Windows Server is very successful. (not that it has insanely high market share like desktop Windows, but that it is still widely used) Plus, not all Linux type server OSs are free. Sure, FreeBSD and Solaris are free server OSs, but Redhat for example, cost money. I am not arguing that Windows Server is the cheapest solution, but in some cases Windows Server can be the best choice. Also, Windows Server 2008 has new features that will really make it equal (feature-set wise) to Unix based alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 11, 2007 Author Share Posted September 11, 2007 No ones saying that Windows Server is bad...Its just the ridiculous amount of money that its "saving" the state of illinois. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Numberzz Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 cmon guys 10.5 million! 10.5! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamsong Posted September 11, 2007 Share Posted September 11, 2007 Exerpt from http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/6...study_Final.doc CMS did not want to pursue a Linux-based system because it considered an open source system too risky to implement, given the organizational transition. "It would have meant too much pain for us to move to an open source system at this time," says Matthews. "In government, IT is all about consistency and reliability. So for us, stacking up mismatched parts doesn't make good business sense in terms of usability. I am wondering if this started as a normal tech evaluation and turned into: hey - we can toss in $10.5 to sweeten the deal, if you give us a nice quote or two for our new site. Also, the comparisons on the Windows Server site seem to be comparing to RedHat Enterprise solutions. So yes, there is money involved. What is not clear from the advertising exerpt and from the microsoft site is that the risk mentioned in the quote is likely related to having a multi-platform solution vs. windows which in theory requires less training for users vs. the transition time and additional training hours needed to implement a Linux solution. At the end of the day, it costs money either way to transition from one platform to the other for an organization in woman hours. The misleading microsoft advertising is going to be a pain for a while. Oh, and the last statement is misleading in the context of the ad. "Our [Microsoft] solution is saving us $10.5 million over five years in software costs alone. "The "savings" is likely Windows single-license vs Windows bulk licensing. I'd believe it based on the huge infrastructure needs for a state with a large Metro area like Chicago. From the excerpt you can't tell if the two sentences in the ad are supposed to reference each other, or be independent statements. Having talked to Microsoft reps as a nonprofit, they love to talk about volume discounts as well as nonprofit rates. Thankfully we have about 60% Linux LTSP and only 40% Windows now, so I've had less to deal with less this year. They'd pay me to support either way, and the LTSP runs much leaner, so the hardware costs are close to $0 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 11, 2007 Author Share Posted September 11, 2007 Thats what I said. Microsoft is probably paying the people who make these quotes a ton of money to actually say that a Microsoft solution is saving them 10.5 million dollars. And even if it did save them some money, it would never save them 10.5 million dollars. Thats a ton of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoboBjörn Posted September 13, 2007 Share Posted September 13, 2007 yeah.. whatever. It's just marketing tactics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 13, 2007 Author Share Posted September 13, 2007 Marketing tactics, exactly. Who would believe that stuff (maybe they would think its a joke ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrjoe Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 It did save them 10.5 million because they were bribed 10.5 million by MS to say that they saved 10.5 million... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomazzzi Posted September 14, 2007 Share Posted September 14, 2007 rofl i work in a big company as a network administrator we only use windows server cause we were fed up with all the support needs for UNIX servers ( i don t even talk about free linux ' s ) windows servers are more reliable than linux servers are, the maintenance is much more easy on windows & you don t need to pay a full time administrator to do the daily tasks !!! i m 100% agree with microsoft statement about windows servers you ll pay more at the end when using linux servers ...... also if you have a BIG problem with one of your free Linux server you ll be unable to find any professionnal support only if you use professionnal UNIX distri s that cost about the same than microsoft s so please kids stop those stupid statements about microsoft & learn to use their OS sorry for my english ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 14, 2007 Author Share Posted September 14, 2007 No ones saying that Windows Server is bad. Half the posters on this topic seem to get this wrong. Its just that its saving them an outrageous 10.5 million. Even if Windows Servers did save money, how could they save 10.5 million. Seems quite impossible... If you want more outrageous statements, go to www.microsoft.com/getthefacts/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 20, 2007 Author Share Posted September 20, 2007 Check this, the entire case study on the State of Illinois and Windows Server: State of Illinois Saves $10.5 Million with Messaging and Desktop StandardizationWith a directive to increase efficiency and reduce costs, the State of Illinois embarked on an ambitious process to improve the overall effectiveness of the state government. In the IT realm, improving efficiency meant standardizing the state's three decentralized messaging systems and moving to a single desktop software solution to enhance user productivity and collaboration. The state selected Microsoft® technology—including Windows Server™ 2003, Exchange Server 2003, Systems Management Server 2003, and Office Professional Edition 2003—for its new solution, which will generate U.S.$10.5 million in savings over a five-year period. It also will provide for smoother communications among employees and more effective IT management. Ultimately, the Microsoft software-based solution will help the state serve its 12 million constituents more quickly while saving taxpayer dollars. Read this part: The state selected Microsoft® technology—including Windows Server™ 2003, Exchange Server 2003, Systems Management Server 2003, and Office Professional Edition 2003—for its new solution, which will generate U.S.$10.5 million in savings over a five-year period. That set of Microsoft software is gonna make them go bankrupt Also, you can see a case study video here: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/com...s.mspx?recid=57 EDIT: After seeing the video, I see that Training Users and stuff is costing money when using Linux...Now it sorta makes sense but still Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassJAw Posted September 28, 2007 Share Posted September 28, 2007 There would be costs associated with Linux. Do you think they would implement it on their own? Someone would be doing it and I'm sure they would be buying a package with SUPPORT from a company so they would be paying for that as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 29, 2007 Author Share Posted September 29, 2007 Yeah, thats obvious and as I said, the training and set up for Linux servers would cost money, but its not gonna save them 10.5 million dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bxsci(macuser) Posted September 29, 2007 Share Posted September 29, 2007 its obviously a typo - its gave them 10.5 million dollars, they're "Microsoft solution" gave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted September 29, 2007 Author Share Posted September 29, 2007 LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts