Is Microsoft Windows cheaper to operate than Linux?
Sunday, December 5th, 2010 at
14:48
For years, Microsoft has referenced independent analyses of Microsoft Windows and Linux with a conclusion that the Microsoft Windows operating system is cheaper to operate when considering the life of product costs. However, critics say this is misleading because Microsoft has paid the analysts to produce the reports resulting in bias.
Do you believe that Microsoft is cheaper for businesses to operate over the lifetime of the product?
Tagged with: bias • conclusion • independent analyses • lifetime • Linux • Microsoft • microsoft windows operating system • windows operating system
Filed under: Microsoft
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
A Windows network manager may be paid less than a Linux network manager. That’s part of the lifecycle cost of the operating system. Also, getting your employees familiar with the Linux equivalents of Windows programs and functions is a cost. Microsoft may be correct on a penny for penny basis, it depends on how much the employees have to learn and how good your network manager is. A good manager, who already knows the distro of Linux you’re migrating to, won’t be a cost. Someone who has to call the consultant 5 times a day for help with Windows will increase costs greatly when you switch to Linux. The analysis may have been worst-case, which will always come out in favor of the best case.
Personally, I think open source software is cheaper in the long run. If we had gone the XP->Vista->7 route, we would have incurred ENORMOUS wasted costs. If we were running Ubuntu, we’d be running 10.10 now, at almost no cost from 8.04 or so. XP was a totally distorted picture – many companies are still running Office XP, so they’ve had zero cost for 7 years or so.
No.