Windows Servers Neck and Neck with Unix Servers

BrainSurgeon writes "According to the Register, Windows based servers are now even with Unix based servers in terms of sales for the first time ever." From the article: "In an overall up server market, IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales on the back of 12 percent growth. Total Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period, IDC said, on 3 per cent revenue growth. Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."

Comments

Free as in 'bullshit'

[Anonymous Coward]

ditto.

Well..

[Coolnat2004]

That's probably because anyone with a slight IT background could *mostly* set up a Windows server, while Unix is a bit harder. Let me rephrase that: A lot harder. Be on the lookout for web services that are up for a few days, get /.'ed, and go poof. You can thank Gates for that.

Re:Well..

[Master of Transhuman]

You should try playing with Windows 2003 Server some time. The avalanche of menus, dialog boxes, and complicated "features" are such that most Windows sys admins can't even administer the box properly, which is why companies using it are so screwed up.

I mean, it is literally true that Microsoft totally devotes ALL of their system design time to adding on "features" that probably NONE of their customers - even their biggest corporate customers - EVER actually asked for and wouldn't know how to use if they did.

And once those "features" are "designed", they are SO complicated to use that no one will ever use them.

And this is why Windows is bloatware, unstable, insecure, and expensive.

It's also why Longhorn is taking ten years to develop - because Windows is SO bloated now that even Microsoft can no longer add "features" without destroying the system. That is why several Longhorn features have been postponed and why the rest are likely to cause Longhorn to not be deliverable until 2007.

The only thing I worry about is that Linux will go the same route.

Re:Makes sense.

[gspr]

1) Access? Excuse me? OK, fine, there are alot of bad things to say about MySQL, but it'll beat Access any day, between breakfast and lunch!

2) Heard of X's networking abilities? Or VNC, if you want something more in the style of Remote Desktop.

3) I don't even know what the hell that is...

Re:Makes sense.

[Anonymous Coward]

You know what I love about all the posts above me. They all bash the parent for supporting a product not of their liking...has the industry really become that bad that we can't support a product and stand by it without recieving slack from every single open source activist. Just admit it, you're just as bad as Hitler was you open-source Nazis. You've created a very accessible alternative, now leave others to their business. "GOBT HABT MICROSOFT! (Its german meaning god hates microsoft, but then again you "freedom to choose" nazis should know that. Note: I may have screwed that up so I'm expecting at least 10 German/Lingustics majors to correct me, enjoy you nazis.)

Re:Misleading headline

[YU Nicks NE Way]

in general, Microsoft-based solutions cost a whole lot more than Unix-based solutions.

Insightful, my ass.

The report discusses server OS sales. Unix-based servers generally cost vastly more than Microsoft servers, with or without an operating system.

you, sir, are a moron

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're buying servers with Windows Server installed and not RHE.

How did this blatant lie get modded up?

Re:Okay so...

[Anonymous Coward]

We still get lots of request for Alpha systems and VMS.

oh, please, you do not and you know it. Maybe you get lots of requests from the same company over and over, but VMS is deader than your grandmother's rotting worm-ridden corpse.