Microsoft touts Linux 'facts'

Microsoft touts Linux 'facts'

Summary: A new advertising campaign from the software giant attacks Linux by suggesting Windows is cheaper

SHARE:
Microsoft has launched an advertising campaign aimed at convincing users that Windows is a more cost-effective option for organisations than Linux.

The campaign, called "Get the Facts", will initially run in US trade publications with a link to a Microsoft site offering analyst reports and customer case studies backing up Redmond's cost claims.

Microsoft is launching the adverts following requests from customers for more research and information on the Windows-versus-Linux debate to help them make strategic IT decisions.

The "Get the Facts" Web site carries a banner claiming "Windows has a lower total cost of ownership and outperforms Linux". It contains an IDC report showing an 11 to 22 percent cost advantage for Windows; a Giga Research report showing 28 percent lower development costs for large organisations using Windows; and VeriTest benchmarking studies detailing performance comparisons between Windows and Red Hat deployments. Customer case studies include Sea Containers Group, Dial-a-Phone and Monster.

Microsoft's campaign will no doubt be boosted by London's Newham Borough Council's decision to negotiate a better deal with Microsoft after finding in open-source trials that a migration would pose "unacceptable risk" to its services.

A Microsoft spokeswoman told silicon.com: "These studies are meant to be another data point in the customer's buying decisions for IT. Every customer has a different scenario; we are hoping to provide as much information as possible to help our customers make decisions."

Topics: Apps, Software Development

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

13 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Wintel versus Mainframe?

    Of course it'll cost less. When you're dropping a million on new mainframe hardware (ram, drives, virtualization software), no amount of Windows licenses & MCSE's can overcome that kind of cost on a single, dual processor Intel box.

    Do you believe that a single, dual xeon with one Windows OS instance can really outperform a single, dual z900 with 96 Linux OS instances? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you...
    anonymous
  • Oracle $80,000 Linux system. See Groklaw for details.

    "The Giga study found that the biggest cost advantages of Microsoft products came in comparison to the cost of Linux-based products sold by monster software makers Oracle and BEA. According to the study, large corporations paid $80,000 for Oracle
    anonymous
  • Microsoft is so pathetic, that it resorts to spreading lies, packaged as "information requested by customers". This is a sure sign that in reality the strategic planners at Microsoft are scared stiff of Linux. They can't buy it; they can't pervert it; they can't beat it. That leaves them with hurt egos! Take a punch Billy!
    anonymous
  • MS lower priced than free? my linux OS is updated/upgraded daily, using net sites available for no fee. the complete OS, including state-of-the-art mail, ftp, data and webservers, cost me 4 hours of download and install, and configure time. IT and user forums for problems or tech assist by the Community are readily available, also at no cost. your "tech assist desk" may have thousands "sitting" at it when you post your question.
    and not all in Bangalore, India.
    beat that, MS.
    anonymous
  • Cheaper? That's funny, I work on a computer I got for free. I downloaded linux for completely free (although I paid for 5 versions of windows before I called it quits) with a free aol trial, as well as other GNU free software include Koffice and OpenOffice and have no use for microsoft and the blue screen of death anymore.

    Total Cost $0.00

    VALUE: PRICELESS!
    anonymous
  • Linux as an operating system has:

    1. Greater stability
    2. Low cost of ownership
    3. Greatest flexibility
    4. Highest innovative potential
    5. Highest security
    6. Require technical resource on part of user
    7. Require costlier hardware [as yet!]
    8. Provide confidence to its users

    Greatest hurdle to linux being low, "Expert support base" along with sabotage tactics by opponent OS [Under real threat!!!!!!!!].;

    Most of its sabotage occurs at the level of OEM retailers who, in a way, discourage if not
    intimidate prospective customers!

    First of all, it all appears OK .........but goose smell comes as we analyse facts more closely
    a kind of gang-up is being seen even in a poor devoloping country [now full fledged capitalist in spirit!!!!!!!!!!]. Linux developers must do something solid to take positive message with the help of media, beside burning midnight for selfless service of humanity. Another problem come from DRIVER incompatibility and KERNEL Lacking support at installation stages

    Forgive me if i said anything that hurt anybody for any reason................totally unintentional........Enjoy Linux.......and its surprises
    anonymous
  • Linkus is free? Last I checked every enterprise buys from IBM, Redhat, Novel etc.. Redhat and its support is NOT free! In the real world their are migration costs, training costs, support cost, etc I also cant see running an enterprise with "message boards" as my support. In an enterprise the ability to sue to recover damages and SLA's are the norm.. Stop the BS about free...
    anonymous
  • We're not talking about the big Linux distributors here though, if the big guys would actually look a bit harder at Linux then they'd find the free ones and free support.
    anonymous
  • What a load of crap!!
    anonymous
  • They cannot be serious man!

    I have been a Microsoft engineer (MCSE NT4/2000 + a few other MCPs) for over 12 years. I know this o/s inside out and that includes Win2K3. I teach and practoce the technologies. I have been running Linux (SuSE) for a few years in quite mission critical environments. I can see no basis in fact which supports the Microsoft thesis that Windows is 'cheaper' to run than Linux. It just is not true.

    Windows provides the 'comfort-zone' environment that keeps millions of users happy everyday. The Windows server systems have their place. But if you want to run seriously large, critical networks, then yuo have no choice but to use Linux as your backend.

    That's my story, and I am sticking to it.
    anonymous
  • Lies, lies, it is just plain clear that Microsoft will say and do anything including fabrications of reality. THe harder they try, the more obvious and clear they make the world go against their "solutions". It is amazing to see how so much wealth can bring down a once great organization.

    "If you thrive for money, make sure you make good use of it. ".

    I hope we get a higher help.
    anonymous
  • LOOK, LOOK, We found the way to cost LESS than our competition!!!!!!!. -Really? , MS= Yes, yes, look they cost nothing plus support which can be nothing. We can prove that we cost LESS than that...!!!!!!! ..

    Really???

    PS: If you keep reading and eating this stuff, do not complain later you were not warned.... OPEN IS MUCH BETER THAN CLOSE. How dificult is for you to understand that????
    anonymous
  • Microsoft techs... please don't get too angry about this next comment. Micro soft techs that work in enterprise environments do not like to work. They like to have support staff and people working for them at many levels. When a server crashes they don't want to do their job and fix it, they want to call their support team to show up in a van and do all the work. Linux IT costs are LESS if you hire internal IT people to work on your servers instead of letting some schmuck run your IT department for a big pay day and a quick work day who's idea of fixing your companies server is making a phone call to another group of techs.
    anonymous