All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company

Windows cheaper than Linux, says Microsoft

(1/3) > >>

slave:
http://www.vnunet.com/News/1136574

HibbeeBoy:
What a vague and ambiguous piece of shite.

pkd_lives:
Yeah Yeah Yeah.. I read this article. It's more opinion being passed as fact. If it is an opinion that is fine but until evidence is provided, then NO it's just opinion and as Ballmer is involved I believe it's BS because I have never heard that man back up a statement such as this with cold hard evidence.

Yeah they sampled 12 companies - what a division of M$, or something, maybe Dell helped out or Intel (you know vested interest), what companies, where and did they take into account the requirement to buy high end equipment to run the software of M$, what businesses and what technologies - the details of argument are missing.

I have yet to see evidence of M$ being cheaper TCO, after all my real life experience brings the lie to that article - it's one of many factors in my conversion away from what I now see as their incompetence.

hm_murdock:
how can Windows cost less?

how can something you pay for by subscription be cheaper than something that COSTS YOU NOTHING?

Linux installs faster, configures once and then just runs, doesn't need to have a hotfix, security patch, or service pack installed every week. It doesn't have to be activated. It doesn't have to have a team of 500 overpaid MCSEs hovering over it night and day to make sure it doesn't fall into the shitter.

<sarcasm>Yeah. Windows is better and cheaper than that more reliable stuff that is free.</sarcasm>

foobar:
J-James, I think that if a (legal) copy of XP would be cheaper than downloading Linux, it would be about -299 euros cheaper  :D

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page