Linux, is it worth trying?

[der bastler 0]

Apropos drag'n'drop:

http://www.derkeiler.com/Mailing....25.html

And if you work with maximized windows d'n'd is worthless. Only exceptions so far: terminal windows (no d'n'd needed) and SIMULINK (d'n'd of blocks from library into system works out-of-the-box). So what?

[denoir 0]

I guess false advertising is part of the everyday life of a honest, customer-caring corporation too.

It's a bit odd, I don't see what they are objecting to.

You have a Linux running on two super-expensive main-frames and performing worse than WS 2k3 running on a cheap dual 900Mhz Xeon machine.

The title of the ad was "Weighing the cost of Linux vs Windows", theres nothing in it about performance.

I interpret it as the cost of running Linux and running Windows in a comparable fashion. The point Microsoft was apparently trying to make was that sure, Linux is free, but to run it in a serious server role you need very expensive hardware.

bastler:

Quote[/b] ]

As a result using the

window scrollbar will install malware in your startup folder.

LMAO Only Microsoft is capable of introducing such bugs.

[toadlife 3]

Show me an advertisement for software that isn't misleading and I'll show you the secret to world peace.

Oracle - "Unbreakable"

WindowsXP - "The most secure Windows Operating System Ever"

PeopleSoft - "The worlds most flexible and adaptable software"

TCO studies are marketing tools to begin with. Either side can take a particular set of curcumstances and show their product to be much cheaper over the other side's product. Everything in that Microsoft ad was *technically* true.

[HellToupee 0]

The title of the ad was "Weighing the cost of Linux vs Windows", theres nothing in it about performance.

I interpret it as the cost of running Linux and running Windows in a comparable fashion. The point Microsoft was apparently trying to make was that sure, Linux is free, but to run it in a serious server role you need very expensive hardware.

Why would linux require much more expensive hardware than windows? it generally is more effient no need for a stupid gui, i mean who seriously needs a gui for a server. guy from my isp moving away to start his own, uses a 486 cluster :P

Perhaps you have seen the movie lord of the rings, the special effects inthat were put together on a linux cluster one of the largest in southernhemisphere.

[cytosine 0]

Yeah, the article makes a good point: Why would they compare these two operating systems on COMPLETELY different hardware?!?!?!!?? Sure that mainframe is WAY more expensive, but it's also true that the IBM z900 has MUCH more capacity than a couple of low end Xeon procs. Xeon's are nice for a powerful workstation or a low to mid class server. They are a waste of money (and processing power) for desktop systems, though.

With one z900 you can service hundreds (maybe thousands, depending on the type of transactions being performed) of users concurrently and the machine would probably be about 50% idle during peak hours of the day. Let's see how many dual proc Xeon boxes you'd have to cluster to get the same performance for a high capacity workload. Of course, then your increasing your administrative overhead because you now have more machines to care for.

Comparing two OS's on vastly different hardware doesn't really answer the Windows vs Linux question, now does it?

So let's be smart about it; I wouldn't buy a high end z900 to run photoshop, Outlook or Excel, now would I? Maybe for a true server process like Apache or as a database server like Oracle or Informix, but not for client tools. And on the other hand, who would put a muli Terabyte database on a two processor Xeon box running Windows or Linux? Maybe if it was a test or dev or archive database and you didn't care about processing power or multiple user concurrency....

They are comparing watermelons to walnuts. If Microsoft wanted a true comparison, they'd install Linux on that same Dual Proc Xeon and THEN publish the results. Why didn't they do that? And as toadlife pointed out, Microsoft could have still skewed the results to somehow make Windows look better. All the vendors do it, and I'm sure that third party reviewers do it too, just so they can get kick-backs or fame, etc.

Regardless, it is still my belief that Linux TCO would have been less. But this thread is really about Linux on the desktop vs. Windows on the desktop, not Linux as a server vs. Windows as a server.

"Cheap, fast, reliable. Pick any two."

:~)