Studies related to Microsoft
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please improve this article if you can. (September 2007) |
 |
This article or section needs to be updated. Please update the article to reflect recent events / newly available information, and remove this template when finished. |
There have been a number of studies related to Microsoft. They are always a source of great controversies, since the studies are often funded by people or companies having a stake in one of the sides, and there are a lot of advocates on both sides.
Contents |
[edit] IDC study: Linux TCO vs Windows 2000 TCO
In October 2002, Microsoft commissioned International Data Corporation to determine the total cost of ownership (TCO) for enterprise applications on Windows 2000 versus the TCO of Linux on the same enterprise applications. IDC looked at security and other infrastructure tasks, and Web Serving. According to the report, Windows 2000 had a lower TCO for four infrastructure items and Linux had a lower TCO for web serving. IDC's report was based on telephone interviews of IT executives and managers of 104 North American companies in which they determined what they were using for a specific workload for file, print, security and networking services.
IDC determined that the four areas where Windows 2000 had a better TCO than Linux — over a period of five years for an average organisation of 100 employees — were in the use of file, print, network infrastructure and security infrastructure. They determined, however, that Linux had a better TCO than Windows 2000 when it came to web serving. The report also found that the greatest cost was not in the procurement of software and hardware, but in staffing costs and downtime. The report did not take into consideration the impact of downtime to the profitability of the business (although they did apply a 40% productivity factor, in order to recognise that employees are not entirely unproductive during periods of IT infrastructure downtime) though it did find that Linux servers had less unplanned downtime than Windows 2000 Servers. They found that most Linux servers ran less workload per server than Windows 2000 servers and also found that none of the businesses they interviewed used 4-way SMP Linux computers. IDC also did not take into account specific application servers — servers that need low maintenance and are provided by a specific vendor — when they performed their study. The report did emphasise that TCO was only one factor in considering whether to use a particular IT platform, and also noted that as management and server software improved and became better packaged the overall picture that was being shown in their report could change .
[edit] Criticism
This study was one of the most criticised studies, since Microsoft funded it. Many editorials were written about the study, including one by The Register.[1]
[edit] Cybersource TCO study: Linux versus Windows
Melbourne-based Cybersource compared in 2004 the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of running Linux versus Windows in the enterprise. Its studies found that Linux was 36% cheaper than Windows, when taking into account the software cost as well as service, support and upgrades. The study done in 2004 was an update on their previous studies in 2002, and found the same results.
[edit] Get the Facts
Get the Facts was an ongoing advertising campaign launched by Microsoft in 2004 to encourage users to switch from Linux to Windows Server System.[2] It was originally focused on comparing the TCO of Linux to Windows, but later compared reliability, security and interoperability. Microsoft claims that its products have a lower overall TCO than open source programs, and that these savings are made by its ease of use, resulting in less work and lower staff wages.[3]
[edit] Response
Microsoft's figures are disputed by a variety of organisations, notably Novell and The Register.[4][5][6][7] Some websites suggest that some common inaccuracies in Microsoft's figures stem from including figures for Unix and Solaris with figures for Linux.[citation needed] Individual Linux and Unix administrators may have higher salaries than Windows administrators, but they tend to be more efficient and thus able to handle more servers.[8]
In 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the UK warned Microsoft that an ad from the campaign which claimed that "Linux was ... 10 times more expensive than Windows Server 2003", was "misleading", as the hardware chosen for the Linux server was needlessly expensive.[9] The ASA's complaint was that "the measurements for Linux were performed on an IBM zSeries [mainframe], which was more expensive and did not perform as well as other IBM series." The comparison was to Windows Server 2003 running on two 900MHz Intel Xeon CPUs.[10]
[edit] GPLv3 study
Alan McCormack, a Harvard Business School professor, released a preliminary study that stated developers were reticient to move to the GPLv3. This study was widely criticized by the free and open source software community for having an insignificant survey size (34 of 134 emails sent, 11 percent response rate) who were already using and predisposed to non-GPL licenses, and for saying the GPLv3 was under-representative of developers when it has four steering committees.[11][12][13]
[edit] See also
[edit] External links
- Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing (Microsoft)
- Study: Linux Is Still Cheaper Than Windows (PCworld.com)
[edit] References
- Bozman, Jean; Gillen, Al; Kolodgy, Charles; Kusnetzky, Dan; Perry, Randy; & Shiang, David (October 2002). "Windows 2000 Versus Linux in Enterprise Computing: An assessment of business value for selected workloads. IDC, sponsored by Microsoft Corporation. White paper.
- BW Online | March 3, 2003 | Pecked by Penguins
- ^ Windows costs less than Linux. A bit. Sometimes – MS study | The Register
- ^ Get the Facts Home. Microsoft. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ Get the Facts: Total Cost of Ownership p. 10. Microsoft (January 25, 2006). “The cost of IT staffing for Linux is 59.5% higher than for Windows”
- ^ John Lettice (October 22, 2004). Windows v Linux security: the real facts. The Register. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ EMA Study: Get the Truth on Linux Management. Enterprise Management Associates (February 2006). Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ Unbending the Truth. Novell.
- ^ Truth Happens. Red Hat.
- ^ Grant Gross (January 3, 2003). Linux TCO edge: Lower labor costs. ZDNet. Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading'. BBC News (August 26, 2004). Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ Linux 10 times more expensive? Get the facts, watchdog tells Microsoft. CNet (August 26, 2004). Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
- ^ http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070522-microsoft-funds-questionable-study-attacking-gpl-3-draft-process.html Microsoft funds questionable study attacking GPLv3 draft process
- ^ http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070522181705737 Only 11% of OS Targeted Programmers Willing to Help MS-Funded Study
- ^ http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,2134698,00.asp Study: Developers Do Not Want GPL 3 to Police Patents
