On mySimon: Sony Sound Bar
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 22 of 31:
Next »
« Previous
Servers still are expensive, desktops called servers are cheap
Actually, this is refreshing. At last Microsoft is included in server space competition. Servers were expensive beasts until the arrival of Linux and Microsoft almost simultaneously. This should keep server profit margins at rock bottom and make server users a happy crowd.

Just the cost of the power supply for a real server costs more than the total IT investment in 80% of the companies out there. So, can you take a desktop and label it a server ... sure ... but would a bank deploy that to run its online banking business? Not without serious investment in securing the platform, extending the trhoughput, and hardening its reliability (unless they are incompetant that is). Once all is said and done, its usually cheaper to have used a real "expensive" server in the first place rather than builing a frankenstein server in the field.

Certainly some applications like compute servers for research are seeing displacement from clusters of baby boxes, but real servers are all about throughput. Sustained transaction rates is what sells servers - call em big iron UNIX or mainframes, it really doesn't matter but in their space they rule as the cheapest solution. TCO analysis just makes PC vendors look like folks who simply don't understand the game they are trying to play in! The PC is a smart terminal for the enterprise, work happens on back end machines and PC's play a role but Linux is kicken Windows butt in that role and several others as well!

Just look at Oracle who will be 100% Linux real soon, it must have something to offer!
Posted by: oldskool   Posted on: 05/27/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

lol  eLurker | 05/26/04
Assumptions of study?  richard@... | 05/26/04
Assumption was, you say what we want or we don't pay you  oldskool | 05/26/04
Spin vs. reality  catlord17 | 05/26/04
For most, Linux is much cheaper. In some cases they might be about equal.  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
I would go further.  doe_z | 05/26/04
The key is to use at least 5% Linux Desktop, or as much as you can.  DonnieBoy | 05/27/04
Reminds me of TV ads  STDog | 05/27/04
Ford: "Toyotas aren't cheaper!" (nt)  ryusen | 05/26/04
You know what is cheapest????  DonnieBoy | 05/26/04
basic math shows that MS is most costly OS ever  oldskool | 05/26/04
And then there is Fedora, Debian, Gentoo,...  Richard Flude | 05/26/04
Exactly: are companies buying Linux or a distro?  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Reply  MG_z | 05/27/04
Making a profit on open source.  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
Re-read the "study" and your post  Richard Flude | 05/27/04
I think you nailed it...  Anton Philidor | 05/27/04
linux is better than windows in some ways  blahblahblah | 05/26/04
This is the wrong tactic  Linux_Developer | 05/26/04
Waaaa, Waaaa, Waaaa....  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Another INFOMERCIAL from Microsoft  George Mitchell | 05/27/04
Servers still are expensive, desktops called servers are cheap  oldskool | 05/27/04
Your point is???  MG_z | 05/27/04
Who Cares What You People Say!  Da-Man | 05/27/04
Proprietary SW was what makes IT work, turn the page  oldskool | 05/27/04
spare evengels...  ryusen | 05/27/04
5 years isn't long enough and assumptions are unknown  escoles@... | 05/27/04
excellent point, re-buying all the SW kills MS cost model  oldskool | 05/27/04
There is some truth  MG_z | 05/27/04
Simple Rules for Posting  jLindler | 06/10/04
Microsoft: Linux isn't cheaper  bear2bar@... | 05/27/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement