I love reading propaganda :)

[weasel fierce]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=17131

Some of this is pretty amusing

[skoal]

echo "A key reason that RadioShack chose Windows Server System was Windows Services for UNIX 3.5, which gave the company a way to extend the useful life of its UNIX-based POS application." | sed 's/A key/The/'...

Makes perfect sense to me.

\\//_

[poofyhairguy]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=17131

Some of this is pretty amusing

There is one big flaw. In every place where it say Linux, it should say Redhat.


Redhat's too expensive. Redhat is hard to use. Redhat was their problems. Stupid US companies.

[BWF89]

They say that Linux has a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) when your useing Commercial (RedHat, SuSE, Mandriva etc.) Linuxes. But why would a company even use commercial Linux?

All your going to use the Linux for is hosting a few servers and keeping track of sales? Why spend $80 and up and than $6 a month for updates just so you can keep track of invintory? When you could do the same thing for free?


-There is one big flaw. In every place where it say Linux, it should say Redhat.
-Redhat's too expensive. Redhat is hard to use. Redhat was their problems. Stupid US companies.
RedHat isn't the only commercial Linux. Couldn't they just as easily chosen to use SuSE?

[Brunellus]

They say that Linux has a lower total cost of ownership (TCO) when your useing Commercial (RedHat, SuSE, Mandriva etc.) Linuxes. But why would a company even use commercial Linux?

All your going to use the Linux for is hosting a few servers and keeping track of sales? Why spend $80 and up and than $6 a month for updates just so you can keep track of invintory? When you could do the same thing for free?


RedHat isn't the only commercial Linux. Couldn't they just as easily chosen to use SuSE?
...because they don't have anyone on the payroll with the technical ability to keep even a few linux boxes running, and they calculate it would be cheaper to contract out support than hire new hands.

[az]

The last time I went to a RadioShack, I was shopping for a new fan for my CPU. I ended up buying it for $3.50 at a surplus store.

me: "I would like a new fan for an AMD k6-2"

RadioShack boy:"Why do you need a new fan? I have been running the same old Computer for six years now and I do not need a new fan?"

me: "Just show me the CPU fans you have"

RadioShack boy points me to a dusty shelf with four or five $20 fans.

me: "Never mind. do you have a radio that I can put in the shower?"

RadioShack boy: "A water-proof one?"

me: "Yup."

RadioShack boy points me to one which costs $99.

I went to Wal Mart to buy one for Eight bucks.

[aysiu]

There were no $ or % signs in that article. I don't know how much money they saved or on what. In any case, seeing an article on the Microsoft site about a company choosing Windows over Linux is like seeing an article on the Apple website about how someone switched from Windows to Mac. Who cares? Of course companies will always highlight "case studies" that make them look good.

[blastus]

That funnys how they lump "Greater Reliability" into the whole article about Windows vs Linux when the comparison is Windows vs itself. :roll: And "Reduced Legal Risk" come on, we all know that's baloney. And "Lower Total Cost of Ownership", how convenient that they forgot to mention that they will now have to renew Windows licenses every year and buy newer versions of Windows Server every couple of years. And "Improved Security" over what? Great to know that "Windows Server 2003 is locked down by default" now.


Benefits that the company expects to realize by choosing Windows include a lower total cost of ownership, simplified system management and deployment of software updates, reduced staffing and training requirements, improved system reliability and security, and reduced exposure to the risk of intellectual property infringement claims.

That's nice, not too specific to mean anything yet not too vague to mean nothing. ](*,)

[Kimm]

I have a hard time believing that Using Windows Was more "cost effective" then using linux...

also... the unix application thing... first of, Linux is a UNIX work alike... just run it there for ***, secundly, to make it native... gcc <whatever> -o <whatever> ;-)

That would speed up their system significantly... dont you think?

I'm beginning to think that Microsoft offered them Windows free of charge along with free support so that they would have something to write as propaganda at their site.

[N'Jal]

The reason most companies don't use non-commercial Linux is because where's the support?

[Paul Bramscher]

The reason most companies don't use non-commercial Linux is because where's the support?

If they hired talented staff, and those who knew how to use Google, IRC and newsgroups, they'd never have to bother with corporate help desks.

I've run linux since '99 as a home user, and for about 2 years here at work. The number of times I've needed corporate support in that time? Zero. In my office we're now running Red Hat, Ubuntu & Debian. They just keep chugging along. :-P

[xequence]

The company's move to Windows will reduce the number of servers in its stores by 50 percent
Linux uses system resources better...

millions of dollars in hardware, software, system management, and support costs.
You use the same hardware and linux software is free... System management? Does it cost money to turn on the server and plug in a couple ables? What do they need to do? Support costs... Microsoft charges what... 4$ a minute for support? Linux support is GREAT AND FREE!


Cost of ownership is several million dollars less than Linux alternative
Improved security and reliability for entire POS environment

Again, linux is free...
Saying linux is less secure and reliabile is... VERY STUPID! Windows crashed on me many times a day... I dont even know what POS is...



Greater Reliability
Windows Server System and Windows XP Embedded will reduce the time and effort that RadioShack expends to support its in-store environment by providing a greater level of reliability than the company's previous environment offered. For POS terminals, the improved reliability provided by Windows XP Embedded as compared to Windows 95 and Windows 98 will reduce the frequency with which POS terminals must be shipped to the company's headquarters for replacement. Similarly, reliability-related improvements and new features in Windows Server 2003, such as automatic process recycling, will help RadioShack keep its POS servers up and running with less time and effort. If and when problems do occur, the remote support capabilities in both Windows Server 2003 and Windows XP Embedded will allow support personnel at the company's headquarters to address a majority of issues remotely.



Yes, windows XP is better then 95 and 98... But also linux is better now then its versions that came out in 95 and 98...


Reduced Legal Risk
By choosing Windows over Linux, RadioShack will reduce its exposure to the risk of intellectual property infringement claims.


Microsoft sues left and right for anything... When was the last time youve heard of a linux company suing anyone for anything?

Another thing... If radioshack has any programmers they can MAKE THEIR OWN LINUX and make it run with linux programs around today. They can make thier very own version, customize it to their needs. You cant do that with windows.


You like microsoft propaganda? It discusts me...

Keep in mind im not biased here... XP has been good to me, except in some ways... Just that it is in no way more secure then linux. Some versions of windows cost 4000$! Crazy...

[drizek]

The last time I went to a RadioShack, I was shopping for a new fan for my CPU. I ended up buying it for $3.50 at a surplus store.

me: "I would like a new fan for an AMD k6-2"

RadioShack boy:"Why do you need a new fan? I have been running the same old Computer for six years now and I do not need a new fan?"

me: "Just show me the CPU fans you have"

RadioShack boy points me to a dusty shelf with four or five $20 fans.

me: "Never mind. do you have a radio that I can put in the shower?"

RadioShack boy: "A water-proof one?"

me: "Yup."

RadioShack boy points me to one which costs $99.

I went to Wal Mart to buy one for Eight bucks.
ya, i had to do a movie for school(due the next day) and i had to go to crapshack to get a IEEE 1394 cable and they were selling it for $40 US. I really needed it, so i just bought it and planned on returning it when i was done with it, and then when i get to the counter the guy says that it was my "lucky day" and they had reduced the price to 9 dollars. 75%+ discount and they were still making money. bastards.

The fact taht radio shack uses windows is reason enough for me to switch to linux. and who knows, maybe they fluffed the savings of "several million dollars" the same way they fluff numbers all over their store.

[KiwiNZ]

If they hired talented staff, and those who knew how to use Google, IRC and newsgroups, they'd never have to bother with corporate help desks.



So are you saying that company's should only employ IT literate people with high levels of IT fault resolution skills in all positions in their companies?:???:

[xequence]

Cost of windows XP PRO on 7000 computers - 1,600,000$
Cost of Linux on 7000 computers - Priceless (and free)

Somebody quote me =O

[skoal]

[...]also... the unix application thing... first of, Linux is a UNIX work alike... just run it there for ***, secundly, to make it native... gcc <whatever> -o <whatever> ;-)
Oops! Linux != Unix.

Many moons ago, while working within the defense department, I ported a legacy 680x0 VME UNIX SysVR4 16-proc system (uhH! uhH! whew! must remember to breathe) "down to" a linux 2.2 (?) x86 smp - all part of a multi-million dollar contract. There are subtle yet significant differences between the two OS(s) - driver interface, IPC, _g_libc, and more. Anyone? And, that took about..........9 months.

I can only imagine the costs and decisions involved here - deployment on a much much larger scale, the migration to newer hardware systems (aka commercial driver reliance, which by the way, was the case when I had to port a linux driver from scratch in the example above), Industry POS (Point of Sale) apps, possible RFID implementation, etc. linux?! I smell what the Rock is cookin'. All you Shack daddy CEO(s) out there, "Ya feelin' dis?"...

\\//_

[az]

The reason most companies don't use non-commercial Linux is because where's the support?

Huh? If any one of the forutune-500 companies anounced that they were switching to Debian, or Fedora or any other non-commercial linux, do you really think they would have to comb the sands to find support?

Do you think that there would not be a thousand linux IT companies sending in submissions within the hour?

[drizek]

Huh? If any one of the forutune-500 companies anounced that they were switching to Debian, or Fedora or any other non-commercial linux, do you really think they would have to comb the sands to find support?

Do you think that there would not be a thousand linux IT companies sending in submissions within the hour?
but they wont have geek-squad from best buy!

[darkmatter]

but they wont have geek-squad from best buy!

lol.

[BWF89]

but they wont have geek-squad from best buy!
I heard they aren't that great.

[benplaut]

Cost of windows XP PRO on 7000 comhttp://ubuntuforums.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=320104#puters - 1,600,000$
Cost of Linux on 7000 computers - Priceless (and free)

Somebody quote me =O

thou is quoted! :roll:

i really don't care one way or another about propaganda... as long as it's on MS's site, or a linux site. That propaganda is pretty much disregarded, because it's on their sites, etc

[Paul Bramscher]

So are you saying that company's should only employ IT literate people with high levels of IT fault resolution skills in all positions in their companies?:???:

Depends on the size and nature of the organization, and whether they've taken to outsourcing everything. It's a terrible trend here in the US, for manufacturing and labor alike -- sure to come back to haunt us.

But probably the majority of moderate-sized US companies still maintain at least a shell of their own help-desk support. In my experience, somewhereon the order of a ratio of 1-2 full-time experts IT troubleshooters per 50-100 workstations is all that's needed.

For smaller companies, and those for whom technology is a not a focus, then outside help is needed. Canonical in the UK, and there are companies and private freelancers here in the St. Paul/Minneapolis area which can offer professional support for virtually any linux distro.

[majikstreet]

Cost of windows XP PRO on 7000 computers - 1,600,000$
Cost of Linux on 7000 computers - Priceless (and free)

Somebody quote me =O
Nice!

Can I quote you in my signature, this is really priceless...

Hmm...

majikstreet

[xequence]

Yes, you can =O

[mstlyevil]

Is Radio Shack the best M$ can do? Most of your major corporations use Unix/Linux for their servers. Many of these companies IT guys custom build the OS from scratch to match the individual needs of the companies server needs. Radio Shack hardly qualifies asa fortune 500 company. Now if Microsoft got Wal-Mart or some real corporation to switch then they might be able to brag.

[majikstreet]

Yes, you can =O
It's added to my signature now *grins*

[rolfotto]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?CaseStudyID=17131

The case study quote above is dated August 8, 2005. Giving the impression of that this is a relatively recent switchover from their old system.

But this link published March 1, 2001 decribes:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/comm/comm2000/case/radiosha.mspx


"In 1999, RadioShack entered an alliance with Microsoft to launch a massive retailing effort. With this new relationship and the need to get up to speed on leading-edge technology, the RadioShack business managers decided to re-evaluate their Internet strategy.

RadioShack engaged Microsoft Consulting Services (MCS) and a local Microsoft partner (Immedient) to help drive an effort to adopt the latest enterprise technology provided by Microsoft products. RadioShack business managers decided to make RadioShack.com a showcase for the upcoming line of .NET products, including Microsoft® Windows® 2000, Microsoft Commerce Server 2000, Microsoft BizTalk™ Server 2000, and Microsoft SQL Server™ 2000.

Further, while the original quoted website has the title "RadioShack Saves Millions of Dollars by Choosing Windows over Linux," Radioshack was essentially already on Windows so of course it's cheaper than switching....... in the short term:


In late 2003, RadioShack was forced to reexamine the ability of its in-store technology infrastructure to support continued business growth. At the time, the company was using a UNIX-based server computer in each of its 5,100 company-owned stores to support point-of-sale (POS) devices and in-store kiosks—roughly 22,000 PCs that ran the Microsoft® Windows® 95 or Windows 98 operating system. A second in-store server, which ran the Microsoft Windows 2000 Server operating system, handled connec¬tivity with the company's headquarters and basic in-store network routing, and served as a workstation for store employees.

And why did they have this choice in the first place?


An upcoming lease expiration on the Windows-based server hardware motivated RadioShack management to quickly decide which direction to take.

So Radio Shack has a well established MS partnership and was already using Microsoft mostly anyway - except for SCO unix on Point of Sale which is probably why they have to use Unix for Windows.

I don't think they were really considering Linux at all, but followed the standard operating procedure many big companies are using lately:

1)Window License expiring
2)Enter negotiations with MS
3)First quote for new license too expensive, counter offer with threat to switch to Linux
4)(Shortsighted) Profit!!! (Getting lower quote from MS, MS in turn published "success" story)

Now that Radioshack moved their complete business operations to Windows, they'll likely feel it next time a license negotiation comes up - it'll be harder to threaten with the linux move. Good for them.

[Kimm]

Oops! Linux != Unix.
...There are subtle yet significant differences between the two OS(s) - driver interface, IPC, _g_libc, and more...


And your saying there isnt even larger differances between UNIX and Windows? ;-)
What I mean ofcourse, is, that even if MS Windows can run UNIX software I'm pretty sure drivers and soforth still wount work. And even if it would be equaly hard to port the software to Linux as to Windows (wich I doubt) there are other free alternatives that more closely resemble UNIX, such as FreeBSD.