Slashdot Mirror
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."
According to the article, Linux accounted for 10% of sales:
So Linux is being must be counted separately from Unix.
Mostly big "enterprise" CRM and other slaes type applications, as well as document management systems. And of course IIS...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
You're probably right. Just like last quarter Apple sold more desktop Macs than the previous quarter but made less money per unit because they began to sell a lot of Mac minis which were cheaper.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Perhaps what he meant was "I work at a company with a real IT department and have never seen windows used in a critical role."
Real world apps dont take 5 updates per release to become stable. Real world apps dont have more holes than swiss cheese.
Let me tell you a funny story about a company running a Java based CRM app on IIS. This company had roughly 5k users for this app and were having ungodly amounts of crashes and slow connect times. You know what the vendors solution was: Use Solaris or Linux.
What this article doesnt mention is the overall percentages of servers. It just mentions the prior quarters sales. Big whoop. Linux has had 11 consecutive quarters of double digit growth. Windows has one (shortly after its first server-OS release in 4 years) quarter of impressive sales and the world is ending.
Reality is that this should happen for MS every time they release a new version of their OS (front or back end) because they go so long between releases and there are tons of reasons to upgrade. When dealing with a Unix platform the need to upgrade is much less since the majority of the needed items are rolled into almost all prior versions and you generally wont have some crap-ass "built for XP" compatibility issues.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." --Albert Einstein
Garbage? Sounds like you've never tried it. Almost makes you sound like a php/mysql l33t fanboy.
Enterprise edition is still a LOT F'N CHEAPER than oracle with similar features - by a LOT. Especially now that Oracle will charge PER CORE!
Price for a 4-cpu machine (not using dual cores either - which would double the price of oracle licensing):
SQL Server 2000 Ent. Ed: 80k$
Oracle9i Ent. Ed w/ OLAP & Data Mining: 320k$
"Just" 4 TIMES AS MUCH! (or 8 if you got dual cores)
It might be marginally better in some (rare) situations, but for 99.9% of business and corporate applications it will do just fine, and for a LOT LESS.
Oh, you'll also save a lot in wages. Senior oracle DBAs cost a LOTTA $$$ (just like their DB).
Saying it's a toy is beyond a troll. For 320k vs 80k for a very similar setup, it better be F'N good. Postgres? Come on, you're sounding worse than a mysql fanboy now...
Fact: it is much cheaper than oracle
Fact: it repeatedly wins at top TPC-C perf & price/perf comparisons
Fact: it's used by a lot of huge corps, and it does work fine for just about all of them
I think I needn't continue.
Which is *exactly* what the EU ruling is about.
sybase, initially. it's been many years since then, so my assumption is that it's been quite modified since then.
creation science book