According to Microsoft's own statement, using the Windows platform than using Linux costs
Original address: http://www.microsoft.com/china/windowsserversystem/FACTS/default.mspx
A series of white paper and industry case studies have shown that the Microsoft® Windows® platform has a certain advantage. The following fact data is available in selecting Windows and Linux operating systems.
Main customer case study
Jilin Agricultural Information Unix Migration Success Story
Based on the compatibility, easy-transplantability, system stability, cost, etc. SFU) to replace the original SCO UNIX operating system.
Equifax foresees will save 14% cost
Learn about Equifax Why is the world's main data processing company to choose Windows instead of Linux to increase the speed and performance of its sales services. The company is foreseeable to save 14% cost using Microsoft Windows Server System and can save 14% compared to Linux. More case studies ...
white paper
Owners' total cost
Detailed financial status indicates that Linux's total cost is 5% to 20% higher than Windows.
Forrester (April 2004): "Open source cost and risk", the author is Julie Geira and Adam Brown. He has independently analyzed a long-term use of Linux. The conclusion concluded that some company's operating costs exceed the original purchase fee, making Linux's total costs more than Windows's total cost.
Large businesses: from using Windows to use Linux, "Excessive expenses, extreme complexity does not bring real business benefits"
Yankee Group (April 2004): "Linux, UNIX and Windows TCO Report, Part 1", author Laura Didio. This independent report is divided into two parts. The report is calculated that the cost is 4 times higher for companies mainly using Linux or transfer from using Windows to use Linux, and the upgrade time is 3 times longer than Windows. The number 2 of the report has been studied, and studies have shown that there is almost no company plans to use Windows to use Linux. Due to the deeper interviews responsible for the company's technical resources, they praise Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP due to significant improvements in performance, reliability and security.
Cost comparison of licensing and support
SUSE Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux can compete with Windows Server in terms of licensing and support costs
BearingPoint (May 2004): "License and Support Cost of Server Operating System - Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 with Novell / SUSE Linux 8." After analyzing the public pricing and license terms, by Microsoft Funding, the cost comparison survey conducted by BearingPoint indicates that Windows Server 2003, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 is not significantly different from Novell / SUSE Linux 8. According to the research on enterprise and medium-sized business programs, the licensing and support costs of these three vendors are basically equivalent, although there are different opinions, but analyzed that in many cases, the cost of Windows Server 2003 is better than Linux Commercial Products. The cost is low. safety
Windows users are not easily attacked
Forrester (May 2004): "Is Linux safer than Windows?", Author Laura Koetzle, Charles Rutstein, Natalie Lambert and Stephan Wenninger. After collecting valuable attack data for a year, Forrester analyzes Windows and four main Linux distributors on the main measurement of the thoroughness of the vendors' response vulnerability, the thoroughness of the revision of the repair defect. .
performance
Windows Server 2003 has better than Linux file service performance
Veritest (June 2004): "Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Standard Edition and Samba 3.0 and Red Hat Enterprise Linux ES 3.0 file service performance comparison." Analysis by the industry standard NetBench on the throughput of the file server indicates: in various tests In configuration, Microsoft Windows Server 2003 performance is superior to Samba 3.0 that runs Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
