Windows advantage?

Posted Oct 14, 2003 11:26 UTC (Tue) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link]

I believe they can (will) take two approachs (well, say two and a half..), continuing a
pattern that's becoming well defined and quite predictable.

First, they can continue claiming the hundreds of thousands of dollars saved off of
traditional Unix, which is where they are making the comparisons for those claims
now, after all, and valid they indeed are (tho they of course neglect to mention the
even LOWER cost Linux alternative, but that's what marketing is SUPPOSED to
do, accent the positive and ignore the negative unless forced to respond by a direct
question on it, so there you have it).

Second, and this is something we're seeing more of lately, they make the sometimes
legit claim that Linux admins are rarer and may be rather more costly. (Again, they
focus on the positive and ignore the negative, that fewer of said admins are normally
needed, but again, that's marketing, telling the truth, but not the WHOLE truth,
and CERTAINLY not "nothing BUT the truth," especially when it's MS
marketing..)

Third (or second and a half), as an offshoot of two, they sponsor "corner-case" case
studies where given narrow enough definitions and a well enough defined and
limited corner case, they may actually come out on top. Thus, for instance, one such
study covered five-year cost instead of the three- or even two-year upgrade cycle
MS prefers when comparing the "savings" of Licensing 6.0, such that the initial cost
of the MS licenses were spread out over a longer period to make them less onerous
as compared to the lower or free initial licensing cost of the Linux solution, while at
the same time emphasizing the alleged higher cost of Linux admins, to pull MS
ahead under a very tightly controlled and narrowly defined corner case scenario.

Duncan