PDA

View Full Version : Studies related to Microsoft - server costs



money2themax
February 3rd, 2008, 11:24 PM
Studies related to Microsoft
you have got to read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_related_to_Microsoft
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_related_to_Microsoft)

Mary.Riley
February 6th, 2008, 05:49 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about the data frame. A phone survey of IT managers may not automatically be the best sample. Yes, they are the correct frame: IT managers know the TCO for their organization. But were they selected randomly? What's the margin of error? The sample is really, really small --- there's thousands upon thousands of servers out there, and only 100 were sampled?

And then there's the whole MS funding issue...

money2themax
February 6th, 2008, 06:17 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about the data frame. A phone survey of IT managers may not automatically be the best sample. Yes, they are the correct frame: IT managers know the TCO for their organization. But were they selected randomly? What's the margin of error? The sample is really, really small --- there's thousands upon thousands of servers out there, and only 100 were sampled?

And then there's the whole MS funding issue...

well you have got a point there

toupeiro
February 6th, 2008, 08:11 AM
From the OP's link, I actually found a great source wiki page which I think does a great comparison analysis of the design of both OSes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_and_Linux

hyper_ch
February 6th, 2008, 12:49 PM
Just two questions: If you fund a study, do you prefer an outcome that says your product is superior? If the outcome says, your product is inferior, will you fund a new study by the same people again?

fatality_uk
February 6th, 2008, 07:04 PM
Just two questions: If you fund a study, do you prefer an outcome that says your product is superior? If the outcome says, your product is inferior, will you fund a new study by the same people again?

Most definitely YES and most definitely NO

lespaul_rentals
February 6th, 2008, 08:50 PM
More FUD from the Microsoft campaign team. Some of their points are valid at times, but for the most part they take quotes from incompetent network administrators.

"So, why did you move from Linux to Microsoft Server 2003?"
"Well, Linux sucks. I started my Linux server, and it didn't have buttons to click! I had to type everything out. IIS is so much better, I just clicked a couple of buttons and my web server was up and running!"

My CCNA teacher is a really smart guy and a great network administrator, but he hates Linux and that's his only downfall. The tech school runs on Windows Server 2003, and it is fairly stable, but then again it has fewer than 100 computers. Windows Server 2003 really is a great server operating system if you want a GUI and are running a small network (and like viruses), but qualified network administrators will often use Linux.