Microsoft tries new tack with small firms

TalkBack 3 of 6:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Not necessarily...: Unfortunately, Linux is cheaper and therefore much better suited for a small businesses. If you're a small company, price is a big deal. You can't afford enterprise pricing.

While it's true that Linux IS cheaper - if you only count the inital software acquisition. Setting it up, configuring it, and getting your network to communicate properly, on the other hand, is another matter. Most small companies do not have an IT department. It's a LUXURY to have a full time IT guy or Linux geek on the payroll.

It's been my experience that most small companies I've dealt with (depending on their size and needs) will usually go with a box with some Win2k or XP Pro as their server or with Win2k or 2k3 server.

More often than not, especially in smaller outfits I've dealt with, the boss is usually the guy who does most of the IT duties. And most of the time, the guy's overworked enough with running his business to have time to muck about learning an entirely different critter of an OS. He's happy with being able to go in, set it up (right or wrong, so long as it works) so he can go about his business and not worry have to about it.

Windows is usually a LOT easier to setup and maintain as a server - be it Win2k or XP Pro or 2k or 2k3 server than Linux - if only for the fact that the interface is more or less consistent and doesn't require a huge learning curve to figure out.; Posted by: Wolfie2K3 Posted on: 09/07/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use