Windows Cheaper When Studied by MSFT Analysts

richdun writes "Here is a study done by an independent research firm which claims that under certain circumstances, it is cheaper to develop applications and enterprise solutions for Windows than for Linux. They cite costs from more education, time developing, etc. Of course, the story is quick to state that the whole study was funded and commissioned by our favorite Redmond, WA based software giant. "

Comments

You can't beat free!

[usotsuki]

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh!

Windows will NEVER be cheaper than Linux or FreeBSD.

-uso.

Re:You can't beat free!

[teg]

With things like yp, ldap, autofs etc. available, Red Hat Linux works pretty well out of the box.

Windows, OTOH, doesn't, unless you buy it preinstalled.

Installation/initial configuration is just a small piece of the picture, of course, but an area in which Linux excels.

Re: You can't beat free!

[Carrot007]

>A second-rate developer may only make 90% of what a first-rate developer does, but produces about half the results and lots more bugs

This sentence is fine.

>A third-rate developer might make 80% as much, and produce 1/5 the amount of code and vastly more bugs for the others to fix.

This unfortunatly seems to be re-itterating the stupid notion that it is about the no of lines of code you right.

Please think borfore commenting.

I was almost convinced until...

[agwis]

Although I'm not a Windows fan, I actually could believe this, until I read this part:

"Last December, Microsoft released a study that showed that Windows-based servers were cheaper to run than those on Linux in four out of five common server tasks."

You just got to love studies funded by non-biased companies!

Re:I was almost convinced until...

[mcguirez]

Well lets see...

1. Install IE Security patches - Linux N/A
2. Install MS Exchange Security patches - Linux N/A
3. Install MS Office Security patches - Linux N/A
4. Install MS Outlook Security patches - Linux N/A

5. Daily Operation - Linux faster

Yup. Microsoft is faster for 4 out of 5.
(But who really wants to do those four?!)

Re:Wait a minute...

[szo]

You obviously never purchased MS development tools.

Szo

Bah

[stratjakt]

If you don't like the biased article, why post it Taco?

-1 Flamebait for you.

Of course noone bats an eye when sweet-as-honey Apple starts spewing bullshit about how their computers are "faster than light".

BTW, I agree with the studies findings, if only for the fact that you dont have to choose between 900,000 incomplete and partially functional APIs and libraries, and research moronic licensing terms. Hippies should be planting flowers and chasing rainbows, not writing software licenses.

Both Sides of the Fence

[globalar]

I'm sure if a study came out by [favorite open source entity] citing the same general claim about Linux and open source developement, /. would have no questions, only praise. So each camp brings its own version/view of the evidence to the table - nothing new about that.

The point being, these studies are generic (at best) - every application, developement team, and environment is different. Some individuals will naturally take more time with certain elements than others (thus, they might be percieved to cost more). Some applications will be made better than others - and it's hard to put that into numbers exactly.

Sometimes there is a viable and cost-saving commerical solution.

Code comparison

[caffeineHacker]

Simple counter comparison

C#
-------
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i ++)
{
cout << i;
}

-----------
Java
------
for(int i = -1; i < 100; i -= 100)
{
system.out.println(i);
}

------------------
See C# is much better