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!

[MoonFog]

This study takes into consideration more than just the price of the OS. Things like support, salary for developers etc.

This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.

Re:You can't beat free!

[Falrick]

Why is it so hard to believe that developing on Windows could possibly be cheaper than developing on a Linux box? For you, as a developer of an open-souce, I code because I enjoy it, project, you are right. Developing under Linux (or FreeBSD) will always be cheaper than developing under Windows... for you.

However, the corporate world is quite often very different. When you have preasures of deadlines and QA, quite often you don't have the time to work with a somewhat less feature-rich, but free, tool. Some tools just make developing certain kinds of applications more efficient, take VisualBasic for example. There's not much else that can compare to the RAD capabilities of VB. Sure, you might argue that there is no long-term viability for a VB app, but long-term viability isn't always needed. Neither is peak performance. Greater development efficiency directly translates into greater profits. Greater profits may quickly overcome any savings that you may have gained from developing your solution on an open source free OS with free tools.

Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth ~$1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself.

So, for certain kinds of development, yes, you certainly can beat free.

Re:You can't beat free!

[EastCoastSurfer]

installing Red Hat Linux on a server or a workstation is quick and will only need a small tweaking, while the same is far from truth on Windows

Look, I use and like linux like the best slashbotter, but lets be real. Either OS you end up using in a corporate environment is going need a lot of time for tweaking and customizing. I wouldn't let a virgin Windows or Redhat install just rollout to an entire enterprise.

Re:You can't beat free!

[PainKilleR-CE]

The study doesn't really have much to do with Linux, except that it was the OS used to host the J2EE apps. It's a study of the costs of developing web-based software for .Net vs. J2EE.

The study was based on interviews with 12 companies, seven of which use Microsoft's .NET platform and five of which use Linux.

Forrester said that the main difference in cost was not due to price of the basic software, but rather the price of developing the software, including labor costs.

Despite the difference in costs, however, the Forrester report also noted that "many organizations will adopt Linux instead of Microsoft's alternative" because of the expertise they have built up on the Unix platform, Sun's proprietary operating systems used to run computer server networks.

Not that I hold much faith in 'interviews with 12 companies' as a solid foundation for a sweeping generalization on the costs of development, but it's easy, for me, to see how developing for a Java platform would be more expensive for some people than developing for the .Net platform.

Re:You can't beat free!

[brlancer]

This study is sponsored by Microsoft, so it's probably biased as hell, but a Linux system is never absolutely free for a corporation.

No, but most of the "costs" that are assigned to Linux presume an existing greater knowledge of Microsoft Windows; it never includes the money spent training these people to use Windows originally nor does it try to compare costs of complete training: how long does it take to get an admin for *nix and Windows (respectively) to go from 0 to 60?

Despite what people say about the "learning curve" of *nix, I believe most of that is due to breaking bad habits they learned in Windows. I picked up Unix exceptionally quickly, in part because I never knew Windows very well. So, if one were to remove the costs of Linux training that they have ignore WRT Windows training, the cost is significantly less. Realistically, the costs should be counted for both, not discounted for both...

Re:You can't beat free!

[Lysol]

dude, this just doesn't make sense:

"Take for instance a relatively simple GUI application. Say that it takes two weeks to develop the application under a free toolkit like GTK. Now say that it takes only one week to develop that same application under VB. If we use a $60k developer salary (which is only about half of what it actually costs to employ a developer), then we see that one week of time is worth approx. $1154. After one month, the license for VB and Windows has quickly paid for itself."

Let's really look at company A (the GNULinux company) in a real world example, because like always, when people cite Windowze development-office stuff, they only present part of the picture.

First off, let's use a office with 50 people, of which there are 2 full time developers and 3 full time IS people. The below are current prices from MicroWarehouse at their non-discounted prices.

Now, for office B, first, the Windoze office (I'll leave hardware out of this cuz, especially with Exchange, that's a whole other cost issue):

* 50 copies of XP Pro: $21,747.50
* 1 Win2k file and print server with 50 CALS: $3018.72
* 1 Win2k with Exchange Ent. with 50 CALS: $12,107.44
* 2 copies of VS .NET Ent 2003: $4657.86
* 50 copies of Office XP Pro: $21,747.50

This doesn't assume any consulting fees, whatever, since we'll assume the 3 IS guys are Windoze experts and know how to set up everything.

Total just to get office B up and running so that said developers can develop code: approx. $63,279.02

Now, let's look at office A, the GNULinux office. For basic comparisons, we'll use Redhat 9 deployed.

* 50 copies of RH 9: $0 (cost of 3 cd-r's: approx. $1.50)
* Samba for file and print for all 50 users: $0
* Kroupware (I know, not the best Exchange equiv, but the only free thing really avail strongly for GNU/Linux that delivers scheduling that works) for 50 users: $0
* 2 copies of development environment for GTK-Java-whatever: $0
* Ximian XD2 with Ximian Open Office: $0

Cost (not including hardware or labor) to deploy office B to make snazzy app: $1.50

Cost diff between office A & B: B: $63277.52

Now, plugging in your formula of $1154 for two weeks of development which supposedly pay for VS .NET & Windows server ACLs and Windows Clients, we come up with this:

Office A has no deficit, since their software didn't cost them anything. In fact, they probably had one less sysadmin, so they might have already saved $60k.

Office B has a deficit of $62,125.02. Their developer, to make them money to cover said expenses will need to work an additional: 2118.71 hours.

Obviously, company B should call M$ or MicroWarehouse and try to get deals on this stuff, but regardless, they're still going to need more people, more licenses, which translate into more costs to even start a system where 2 developers can program something.

So, I call bullshit on this entire forumla and the like because they only take one fraction of the puzzle in to play. This is typical with most Windows vs. GNULinux comparisons. I've seen it happen in the real world over and over.

Re:You can't beat free!

[caffeineHacker]

The analogy really doesn't fit, since we're talking about Software Development. Developers should know basic operating system principles and have some knowledge of how to use Unix(Unless the college they went to was brain-dead). *nix systems aren't anything dramatically different either(Like laser controlled what-not), the details just aren't hidden as much. Granted GUI on *nix systems is frustrating since GTK on one system won't always work on another. But you can either do Java GUI, or just make a Perl, etc. front-end. Not a big deal...not nearly half the trouble as many of the MS advocates are making it out to be. And for individual users who use the software that was developed there doesn't have to be a learning curb at all. KDE is almost exactly like Windows, just point and click.

Cheaper when...

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO charges apply...

Taking aim at the server end.

[grub]

(from the article:)
The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. favored by the Linux community.

That speaks volumes: the study is aiming at J2EE and Sun. Granted these are the "certain circumstances" mentioned but MS is taking direct aim at its diminishing server market share with this. They know the desktop is still pretty much a lock-in for the time being.

Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.

Re:Taking aim at the server end.

[rsmith-mac]

Here's a clue: don't trust studies. They are generally paid for by people with agendas.

But on the contrary, don't balk at any study just because someone paid to have it done. As odd as it sounds, companies that do studies don't just pull "statistics" out of their ass, they are by and large sizable companies with good reputations doing honest work. The reason why studies seem to agree with the organization funding them is that often, the organization sets the parameters, creating a situation where things would look good for the company that funded the study. Looking at the numbers, I believe that Giga is right; in their subject pool, Windows was cheaper. The study should only be distrusted when the parameters used don't fit a situation you're trying to use it as proof in; for a company similar to the subject pool, this study would seem to be an accurate comparison.

Re:Taking aim at the server end.

[grub]

Says who?

Says Microsoft. :) These types of sandbag-studies are directed at PHBs with a bit of technical knowledge, even if that knowledge is just having heard the word "Linux". Mindshare is a valuable commodity and by creating a slanted study such as this they take a shot at Sun and Linux in one fell swoop.

MS knows they haven't a chance at swaying anyone with half a clue, but unfortunately most of the people that sign the cheques don't.

Wait a minute...

[turbine216]

how come when MS sponsors a comparison, and the results favor their OS and/or software over linux, it's just GOT to be a big conspiracy? Why doesn't the same criticism hold true for the supposedly "unbiased" comparisons that are done by linux-friendly companies like IBM and Red Hat?

Oh wait, i forgot...this is slashdot.

Re:Wait a minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

By accepting open ideals, linux-friendly companies tend to be more open and include more detail. We like detail, it means more information and reproducability. With enough information, we can make our own conclusions. Of course, some 'studies' do resort to petty name-calling, but there are good ones too. The key is to ignore /. editor comments and make up your own mind.

gotta love this...

[ih8apple]

"The study compared applications built to run over the Internet on Microsoft's .NET platform to applications developed with J2EE, a development platform backed by Sun Microsystems Inc. (Nasdaq:SUNW - news) favored by the Linux community. "

So, they compared .NET to J2EE development and called it a comparison between Windows and Linux?

"favored by the Linux community"? Last time I checked, .NET didn't run on Linux!

Re:gotta love this...

[Vengie]

Hi.
I'm Mono.
The Open Source .Net Framework championed about a trillion times on slashdot.
I will now beat you with a cluestick ;)

some quotes

[rokzy]

"The world's largest software maker, which is facing increased competition from Linux -- the open-source software standard that can be copied and modified freely -- hired Giga Research, which found that licensing, associated software, maintenance, labor, and training was 25 percent to 28 percent cheaper on Windows for certain types of applications."

and

"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."

how can anyone trust crap like this? WHAT TYPE OF APPLICATIONS? WHAT SERVER TASKS?

Re:some quotes

[gl4ss]

Apps: blaster, sobig
server: mirc-slave, open mail relay

Re:some quotes

[cascadefx]

Well 2000 does come with 4 games.
They are Solitaire (which is pretty good compared to the Open Source versions), Minesweeper, Pinball, and Freecell.

Lets break it down:

1. There are not as many decks in the windows version of Solataire to choose from, so that would definitely speed things up. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

2. Minsweeper is small. You can't even resize the window. That's got to cut down on the number of CPU cycles that it uses. Of course you know they only tested it on the easy levels. My suspicion is that it would have only performed better on 3 out of 5 if they cranked Minesweeper up to Expert. ADVANTAGE: Microsoft (despite possible performance rigging).

3. Pinball. That's just unfair. There isn't a version in linux that has the same kicking music. (easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft

4. Freecell. Need I say more. That game screams. After all, they've had 10 years to perfect it. (another easy) ADVANTAGE: Microsoft.

I don't know what you guys are whining about... the evidence is there.

Time Spent

[kannibal_klown]

While I agree with previous posts that Linux is cheaper than Windows in just about every respect, I'm glad that his article touches on something.

With the current development tools available for Windows, as well as all third-party utilities/db drivers/etc, development on Windows goes by much quicker.

I'm not talking about little apps that could be banged out as a perl script in a few minutes, but more robust applications that companies need internally.

However, this is just for the present. If/when more people adopt Linux as desktops then more people will learn how to develop for it and more/better tools will become available. Say what you will about Visual Studio, but the recent incarnations work exceptionally well, and they have a large user base. If we could see 1 or 2 similar development IDE's for linux that are HIGHLY ADOPTED (I know there are some nice ones out there, but the use-rate is still rather low), then things could change.

Full text of the Giga Group report?

[mforbes]

The Yahoo article doesn't link to it; without seeing the details I'm hesitant to fully swallow any synopsis.

I don't find it unbelievable that some tasks are less expensive to produce under MS products than under Linux, but unless the report indicates other reasons, I'm inclined to believe the difference is due to the trained user-base.

The article does say they interviewed twelve firms (hardly a statistically significant amount), seven of which use Windows & five of which use *nix. I'd be curious to know the sizes of the firms involved and the level of training of the personnel in each of them.

In other words, my question is: Is all else equal? I suspect not.

Re:Full text of the Giga Group report?

[Geek of Tech]

And in other news, a recent study has shown that end-users can play solitare more efficently on Windows XP with .NET.

A survey was conducted with 6 people, 5 Windows users and 1 Linux user, who only knew how to play blackjack. The MS users won more games, all totaled. Proof of MS credibility.

Long term costs of windows

[CastrTroy]

When analysing the cost differences of Windows and Linux, the main advantage to windows always seems to be that little to no training is required, while on the other hand, Linux requires lots of training, with Expensive Admins. However, In the long term, if many companies and schools started using Linux, these cost would come down, as many more people would have experience and require less training. Also the number of qualified people would increase, making the salaries of qualified Linux admins go down.

Devil's advocate.

[Ride-My-Rocket]

Ok, let's assume that within this select subset of applications, developing for Windows is 25-28% cheaper than for Linux per application. There's also the underlying operating system to consider. Windows, for whatever reason -- inherent security flaws or merely higher visibility / threat risk, I don't care -- is more likely to be attacked and infected by worms and viruses. As a result, the cost of maintaining applications and the operating system is higher. I'm fairly certain such a cost isn't factored into the study, and I'm fairly certain it's a considerable amount -- trying to keep things secured in my company's 250-user environment is hard enough.

It's J2EE, not Linux

[consumer]

This article really has nothing to do with Linux. It's about J2EE vs. .NET. No surprise that J2EE is expensive. The best Java developers on Linux use much better tools than J2EE and EJBs. A good open source stack with Struts, Velocity, and Hibernate will beat the stuffing out of straight J2EE for productivity. Of course there is also the fact that lots of web development on Linux is done in much more productive languages, like Perl, Python, and PHP. Amazon and Yahoo (on FreeBSD) do it, so it's probably good enough for your lame little site too.

Not hard for me to believe.

[chrysrobyn]

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.

My initial instinct was that this was a combination of "absurd" and "special case so specific it's mostly useless". But then I started to think of a Slashdot thread from just a few weeks ago about the big worms that started recently...

The thread discussed how much cheaper it was to hire just any person and have [him|her] maintain the "Windows Server". Of course, an affordable admin in many small business cases would be unable to keep such a server patched well enough to fend off all the attacks and the machine would be compromised. The thread continued to say that if you compare a competant Windows admin with a competant *nix admin, not only are the costs similar but so is the security-- but you could have a Windows box up, running and making money with an incompetant admin.

No offense is intended, by the way, in calling such a person an incompetant admin, just that many small businesses can afford neither a service contract nor a full time "real admin", so someone who does not specialize in such tasks part-times it. This is a rare situation with *nix, where the barrier to entry of a steep learning curve usually causes entry admins to be better than Windows (I have no real evidence to back up this assertion, only personal observation). The theory is that a small business can't afford to keep 100% uptime, but can afford to go down for 12-24 hours.

This makes me wonder about programming on Windows in a general case. I can understand how someone can develop a Visual Basic program for cheaper than a C (or whatever) equivalent on Linux. Instead of comparing .NET to J2EE, as the article does, I'd be interested in seeing a problem solved by a beginning application developer in Windows (would (s)he choose Visual Basic?), another in Linux (C/C++ plus GTK or similar?), and then someone experienced on the two platforms solve the same problem and find out where the added costs present benefits. Can we tell the difference in benefits between the two skilled solutions or the two unskilled solutions? What benefits are gained by keeping one platform but redeveloping with a skilled developer?

Cost of _developing_ applications

[Woodie]

OK -

First, RTFA. It talks about _developing_ applications. It wouldn't really suprise me if it were cheaper to develop applications on Windows.

Visual Studio .NET is a kick-ass development environment. Even the older non-.NET edition is a lot better than most dev tools out there. Sure, it's pretty expensive - but say you're paying programmers $40/hour (ignore benefits, etc) - the fact you just spent $1200 on a development environment is no big deal: less than a 40 hour week of paying said programmer. And, I'm willing to bet he'll save a lot more than a week of effort by using a better tool.

Say what you will about the quality of MS, and how buggy/bloated their software is. It seems to work well enough for a bunch of people out there. Their developer programs are excelent (maybe they need to be to cover up their crappy underpinnings).

In the open source area you might be able to download some open source code, and cobble a system together to do what you want... But I think I remember reading a statistic that said something like 85% of all software written is custom, internal, business software. So you might have a tough time finding something that solves your problem exactly... But since it's open source you can modify it to fit - sometimes; sometimes it's more trouble than it's worth.

With things like Eclipse for Java development in the open source arena the gap should close up in that area too (dev tools) - but don't kid yourself; we've still got a long ways to go.

Re:They could be right.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux.

Wow. I guess ignorant, inconsiderate jerks are on both sides though.

That which works

[SgtChaireBourne]

buying something which works can often be a lot cheaper

Yes, going with something that works reduces the TCO. That's why there is a market for OS X, QNX, and Netware.

From my past few years, I've found that RedHat and SuSe are much easier to maintain than the MS offerings, and installation seems easier and faster. Debian and OS X still lead on ease of maintenance.

Re:They could be right.

[molarmass192]

Finally, it is quite obvious that stupid people find it easier to program in Windows. This is not true on linux. Linux requires knowing a lot of intricate details and knowledge of ...

Right, but this is irrelevant in Java. Also, Java suffers from history hangover. It had some growing pains but most of those have long since been corrected. Also, MS seems to have a penchant for comparing unoptimized Java code with highly optimized C# code, hardly unbiased. Finally, with Java 1.5 due out in early 2004, current comparisons between .NET and Java will all become dated. I'm not particularly worried about .NET but Microsoft appears to be particularly worried about Java.

Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact

[asb]

Duh, did all the PHP fanboys just moderate the parent up to +4 Insightful? Get a life...

.NET and J2EE are more than just ASP and JSP. Comparing PHP to them is way more stupid than what Giga Research group had to do in order make the /. front page...

.NET vs J2EE, not Win vs. Linux

[mystran]

This studies the costs between .NET and J2EE, not really Windows and Linux.

One could also say that it compares native Windows and J2EE, but Java is by no means a native system to Linux, which is to say that this is like comparing apples with oranges.

Having supported a largish J2EE application, I can tell that the it's equally awful platform, whether it runs on Windows or UNIX. I'd suggest that if one compared J2EE on Windows to J2EE on UNIX, UNIX would probably win.

independent?

[LMCBoy]

"...a study done by an independent research firm...funded and commissioned by Microsoft..."

You keep on using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means...

Re:Apples to Oranges But It is a real fact

[Decaff]

J2EE development may seem slow, but this is because you are expected to do some serious analysis of a project and write scalable portable code: The time spent is a worthwhile investment. Comparing MS products with something like J2EE is rather like comparing Access to Oracle - you can write apps very quickly with the former, but you would not want to run a business with it.

Re:This isn't totally off base

[javatips]

If you consider the productivity gained by using an IDE such as Visual Studio .NET 2003.

You have intellesense statement completion, automatic code formatting and highlighting, and intelligent help that will pull full documentation on any statement you are typing with one click.

You have the same thing with Java IDE such as Eclipse (free) or WSAD ($$$) or JBuilder ($$$). The Java IDE that cost $$$ will have the additional benefit of having wizards and views that speed up the creation and configuration of EJBs and other J2EE stuff (Eclipse has some of these too, but they still have a some way to go).

Re:.NET on linux

[pmz]

Why not compare Mono/Linux to .NET/Windows so we wont compare apples and oranges.

Because .NET really does not work on Linux. Only a small subset does, and that is with Microsoft's toleration (for now).

Conversely, there are full-blown fully-sanctioned-and-supported J2EE implementations for Linux distributions. In fact, there are several full-blown J2EE implementations available. From different and competing vendors.

Funny how proprietary lock-in isn't a criteria in these "studies".

Refine the Questions

[Carcass666]

It may indeed be easier cheaper to develop apps under Windows when the shop is all Windows; but is it cheaper to build cross-platform, interoperable applications that can communicate and run across the multiple platforms that may be encountered within (and outside) an enterprise? I would argue that J2EE development platform is a far more cost-effective, scalable and portable approach than .NET/COM +/DCOM/etc. Microsoft can put on all of the XML window-dressing it wants, it doesn't change the Windows-centric underpinnings.

Eclipse does all this

[Decaff]

All of these features are present in eclipse (www.eclipse.org) with Java.