In my experiences consulting, I can say that the vast majority of customers who switch to Windows did so primarily due to cheap labor sourcing. They all firmly believe that finding cheap, replaceable admin and support staff for Windows and MS products is far more realistic than for UNIX or Linux platforms. Whether they are correct is arguable, but that perception drives that movement with unflinching resolve. It rarely has to do with platform reliability or tangible/direct cost. Vendors often level the field with "special" discounts and promotions, so they look for other differentiating factors to drive down costs for increased profit margins.

Let's face it, it is significantly easier to locate even barely-mediocre talent for MS products than for Linux or UNIX within the same salary ranges. If you're focusing on cost-reduction, that's pretty much it. MS may gouge you on licensing, but human costs can be adjusted to suit. Excuse me... i think I here my Indian tech support person calling...

The title of the article says it all: They're completely insane and on crack.

Stability:
Win Serv 2003: 5 hours then a blue screen due to a kernel bug.
Linux 2.6.15: 135 days then I rebooted to start new kernel (no crash)

*KDE crashes dont count, KDE is buggy but harmless

See anything? Note that my Windows usually take 1o days to crash; tis was unusual. Even with the usual 10 day uptime, Linux beats windows

stop spamming please

windows on my pc has been running without issues,without shutdown/restart for around 7 days 7 hours 41 minutes ~50 sec. shocking isn't it .
but it is true ,after reading this article i found out how stable my pc is.
found the numbers on freeramxp.
specs of my pc are windows xpsp2,amd64,nvidia gfx card and msi mainboard.

i have found win98 one of the least stable os i have ever used,i hated those bsod's.
and interestingly i have found stability issues on kde and fedora.

with windows we have windows, but with *inux we have kde/gnome,distros,kernel and this increases the problems

Seems to me that Windows 2003 Server is a great out-of-the-box solution, with a lot of very easy ways to carry out your server functions quickly and reliably. Linux is more functional (it has its own set of functions AND it can do everything windows can do) but it's less complete 'out of the box.'

IT professionals should know how to configure a system without a point/click interface. they should be able to configure any system they work with down to the most rudimentary levels, so any system that hopes to maintain an edge in the server market has to BE configurable down to that level. I know linux/unix is. Windows?

a *nix server can share files and resources to any machine, windows or *nix, simultaneously. MS expects you to run a thoroughly MS-based network.

a point/click server environment that can be "configured" by anybody with a finger and one good eye is nice but it also encourages people who don't know what they're doing to think they do know what theyre doing. and that's where the real danger lies. not in the basic system that's there, but in the way it's used, and whether its used by actual professionals or not.

I have to disagree with you on this. Command line interface simply provides a much faster way to do things for experienced system admins.

A foolish admin can wreak as much havoc using either interface. I know of someone who did an "rm -rf" on an important directory. No warnings whatsoever (you dont normally find this issue with GUI).

But for those who love command line interface, you may look forward to Monad from Microsoft. :)

Serveral things to note..

"Microsoft said...." [rolls eyes]

It is a common practice to use statistics to say what you want them to say. I refer to this as a form of false advertisement.... aka LYING!!

IDC who?

The sad part of all this is there are CTOs / CIOs out there that read this kind of crap information and buy it "hook, line and sinker." [sighs]

I can say the exact same thing for anti-ms sentiments.

THZGryphon,

I did not mean for my post to sound anti-microsoft. Over the years, experience has taught me not to trust press releases from major corporations. [They] are only interested in making money. If they have to twist facts or twist statistics to make their product "appear" more favorable in the public eye, they do it. Integrity is a thing of the past. No honor here.

I have become so synical [sighs]

"Integrity is a thing of the past."

Did it really ever exist?
( I'm more cynical :P )

I remember an old co-worker joking that "the good ole days" never really existed. It's just a mean joke elders use on youngsters to make them feel inferior.

Am I missing something vital here?

"Microsoft made a statement on Thursday that is sure to rile its detractors: the Windows Server operating system is being chosen in greater numbers by corporations over UNIX and Linux for its reliability."

MS gains 45% migration from legacy UNIX systems.

Linux and Unix gain 37% and 16% repectively.

Unless my math is horribly wrong, *nix (Unix and Linux) gains 53%, while MS only gains 45%.

That goes completley contrary to the opening statement of "Windows Server operating system is being chosen in greater numbers by corporations over UNIX and Linux"

Yes, you're doing the math wrong, but you're right that the numbers are also misleading. The percentages are based on what they increased from last previously result. They're essentially saying that Microsoft has the bigger increase from previous studies. Also, you can't lump Linux and Unix together as 53%, because they're not the same.

The post, if you pay attention to what it really says and not what you want it to say for your argument, is only saying that Microsoft is getting signficant increases in the position, where Linux is #2, and Unix is starting to really slow down in growth.

Linux is not UNIX is it? That's like saying Windows XP is Windows 2000.

Your intepretation is close, but the math is off, you are comparing apples and oranges, they are NOT the same thing.

Sun would be upset that you included Linux as a UNIX variant..

I fully realize they arent the same thing. But my point is, while MS is bragging about gaining market share, they are actually LOSING it in the overall picture.

Wow! I was shocked to discover that linux isn't as secure / reliable / whatever as windows! I'm going to go ahead and switch to windows now. Thank god for this article!

Haha! :D

hahaha yes.........

so I take it, you NEVER play any computer games, or have ANY Microsoft software on your machine?

If you use it, then you must rely on it for something..

This is a Microsoft attempt to get people to quit bashing their products, obviously you missed the point.

Microsoft is good software, otherwise why would like 80% of the entire world be using it?

People are the problem with the software, not the product itself. The OS is fine until some newb with a forum article says how to edit the registry and they have no idea what they are doing.

I guarantee you, I can break Unix just as easily.. Its all in what people are doing. You know how to use Unix, and you don't have a problem, well whoopie for you.

I know how to use Windows, and I dont' have a problem, so what?

The reliability of any OS is only as good as its administrator.

Exactly.

...or the users...

Trust me, you need both platforms.

Without any of it, then we would be in trouble.

No, you COULD run an entire platform exclusively. I do, and I have no trouble whatsoever.

That doesn't mean you ALWAYS should though. You have to decide for your purpose.

If you are talking Windows, that's true. Unix people, however, they NEED windows.

Games, utilities, software.

I like how the unix community won't admit they use Microsoft, because they can't live without it.

They lost me on:
>> "We needed performance, security and reliability at a reasonable price, and Linux would have presented greater risk in all those areas," Rayovac CIO Rick Dempsey said in support of the announcement. "I need a proven IT environment that I'm sure we can support."

Performance and Reliability, sure, but SECURITY!???

Ok, I suppose if you removed IE and and all other packaged MS programs(besides the kernel), then you're good to go! The kernel actually seems really nice, but unfortunately MS surrounds it with the rest of windows, and that adds bloat that slows everything down and adds vulnerabilities.

Hey, I haven't rebooted one of my Win2k computers in 4 months, and it's still totally up to date! :D

Umm... People dont normally use IE to surf porn sites on a Windows server...

I have no idea where you got that from, but I have a question.

Have you ever found any spyware at all on your system?

Yes? Then you suck. Now go remove IE and get a good firewall so you'll be safe. :)

Dude, we are talking about SERVER. Not desktop OSes. Please read the article above again.

But if you really want to know: no, I haven't got any spyware or virus in my system for 5 years or so. And I use IE 99% of the time. My friend uses Firefox and he got spywares.

Like I always say, vigilance is the key. If you get infected by spyware, then you most probably deserve it!

As a matter of fact, no. I don't. Ever. No viruses, no spyware. My server serves a very strict purpose, which very limitedly involves any web surfing. My desktop and laptop is free to surf, but even then I do so responsibily instead of clicking every damn link I'm sent or stumble upon.

Pull your head out of your butt, and pay attention.

Why IE?

Firefox will not prevent you from getting malware but it certinally does make it easier to be secure. With IE tab I don't see why you would ever want to use IE.

Also, no not nesecarrly you may get malware from something that you downloaded accidently or someone else downloaded. If you just stay away from the free stuff (i.e. free mouse pointers, screen savers, etc.) you should be safe. Even then you can get malware. It isn't nesecarrly your falt.

Last summer I was paid to essentially clean off spyware from business machines. Trivial work. I recommended Firefox to them, and the ONLY call backs I got were from people who didn't take that recommendation and stuck with IE.

This has nothing to do with the OS, anymore than asking the question "have you ever had a nail in your tire?" I never have, but then I am conscious of where I drive my car.

If you live near railroad tracks or contruction sites, you have a higher risk. If you live in the city, and ALWAYS take highways its basically nil.

So, no I never get spyware, because I know to stay off the non-popular sites.

So don't go putting answers to questions to things you can't attest to.

Sorry. My mistake. I meant to say I've been using Maxthon - not IE. Although Maxthon is using IE engine.

But Firefox is just not for me. Too much of a resource hogger compared to Maxthon. It is also less stable. I do use Firefox when using Fedora though.

Yeah, sometimes you are really, really unfortunate to get something bad although it is no fault of yours. That's why i said "most probably" and not "most definitely". :)

I didn't provide an answer. I responded to a hostile/insulting comment. Perhaps Win2k3 and XP SP2 are different, but other windows OS's get infected by oodles of crap through IE.

Cool. Glad you joined in.

What OS do you use?

The Better Browser mon.

Negative campaigning demonstrates weakness. Why does Ms play big guy-small guy here. I assume Linux and Windows server are a different market.

"performance, security and reliability" -- oh well, you base your decisions on abstract phrases. In reality you take what serves your corporate needs best.

Bull ****

Windows needs to be updated and rebooted all the bloody time. No other OS does.

Yeah, Bull **** to your statement indeed.

Have you actually used any Windows server OS? If not, please dont comment.

I have used Windows, Solaris and Fedora as servers. Windows has come a long way since its WinNT/BSOD days.

Although Windows (server) does require more restarts WHEN components are updated, it is a very stable and reliable server OS. Linux also occassionally requires restart after updates.

I reboot my server twice per month, one by choice, and the other for Windows Updates. The by choice reboot is always due to my insistence on running maintenance, such as CHKDSK to keep my hard drives running smoothly, and Ghost to take a complete backup image of my system. Last time I ran yum on my Fedora system, it forced me to reboot as well, so I fail to see any sense of accuracy in your claim.

Linux retracts: Linux more reliable than Windows.

That's fantastic, and I'm glad Microsoft's reliability continues to improve... but they're also more reliable at being late to release things, so umm, what's the point?

I'm pretty sure that any sensible IT department is going to base their use on what their function is. Sometimes *nix makes sense.... sometimes Windows makes sense. Other departments are going to stick to their fanatic "I'm better than you" mentality.

"I'm pretty sure that any sensible IT department is going to base their use on what their function is.."

Exactly, but Microsoft doesn't want you to know that, it's just not marketing material =)

Windows is a gaming OS. It's the only thing it does well IMO. Far better then any OS. Linux is a server platform, through it is also great at other stuff but sucks at multimedia (ATM)... Mac is a Multimedia platform, apparently it's awesome with that kinda stuff

Pretty sensible comment. That's really the bottom line of things.

Windows has been moving away from gaming power. Win2k(Server/Network OS...haha) was the last best gaming OS. Although XP can multitask so things do not interfere with your game, any serious gamer doesn't have junk running in the background. Thus, XP's multitasking improvements lower performance and benchmarks.

Now MS claims Vista will shut off all that other junk. We shall see...and when it arrives I'll be ready to bench it against my Win2k box. :)

Linux with Cedega is quite good at playing windows games full speed. Once they fix a few stability problems with certain games, it will be a totally viable alternative.

Agree about macs.

These things you bring up are not the creation or fault of the operating system creators. They are the market and application creators. Linux is potentially a much more powerful gaming OS than windows, just most games are written for windows. (and video card drivers for that matter)

Jacen, you really need to learn how to not be an idiot when you post. Read your statement again after you pull your head out of your butt, and then tell me what's wrong with it. I'm not spelling things out for you this time.

You don't know what you are talking about... We are talking about Windows SERVER, not Windows XP... Windows Server 2003 is by far much more reliable than any previous SERVER OS from Microsoft. You don't use your server to play games, you use it as a SERVER.

Windows Server 2003 has several mechanisms to tight security to the specific roles you want to run in your box, IE has "Administrator Mode" enabled, that prevents you to navigate to sites you specifically approve and don't allow ActiveX execution unless you specifically allow it one by one.

So, if you haven't use Windows SERVER, don't comment.

Applications are the key, and Microsoft has done very easy to develop for Windows... in Linux, the story is different.

agreed

As I have stated many times, Betanews has become the clearing house for ANY and ALL press releases issues by Microsoft, no mattter how useless the information.

Seems to be the only reason they have a news section at all.

What the hell is your point? I've seen just as many Google, AOL, and other articles, and if you don't like the news here, there are plenty of Slashdot articles to peruse and entertain you.

"It should be mentioned, however, that over half in the study did not choose Microsoft's products -- with 37 percent moving to Linux, and 16 percent choosing another UNIX variant."

How about reading the article before commenting?

A lot of BN news content is Microsoft related. In reality, what Microsoft does affects more people than say, what Torvalds does since most of us use Windows and other Microsoft products.

Betanews is one of the few websites I visit probably 10-20 times a day.

Exactly.

I still think you might be Nate Mook--

Wow.

And yet you're still here? There are *plenty* of other tech sites, man.

Only on your desktops.

Linux runs the world just as Windows, and Unix do.

LOL

Hence the nick "Nate".

That's pretty old news Bourgeoisdude.

The Linux buzz is HUGE in the server world still.

Possibly because there is a lot more going on in the Windows OS community that matters?

Ok, I know how we can settle this once and for all. We get the newest and best Unix, Linux, and Windows servers out there and have a Winner Takes All contest. We'll call it the Ultimate Server Championship (USC). And I mean "WINNER TAKES ALL". The winner gets all the server contracts in the world and the losers have to burn their source code.

Then next year we can pit the winner against Apple and OS/2 in the Extreme Ultimate Server Championship! :)

Question: What if OS/2 won???

Then we'd all be in for one hell of a ride back to the dark-ages. :)

WOOHOO BACK TO VBBS!

heh

Ooh man...but wouldn't something Sun win? They have their dying-hardware detection stuff that makes sure the server is never down. :/

No reboots, no nothing...except maybe to replace dead memory or a harddrive. I don't know if you can pull a HD out or not from one of those things. :D

You know, they didn't call it the dark ages because it was dark, right? :)

Damn!

There goes my entire thesis.

I hope you're happy!

Funny you don't complain about OS/2 too... at the end, Microsoft wrote a good part of it ;)

Lately I have noticed several organizations choosing Windows over Linux / Unix due to various reasons. This was not the case a few years ago. It clearly shows the improved reliability of the Window servers.

There is no doubt that Windows is becoming stronger by the day.

Aside from the relentless Linux fanboy rave that Linux is more secure than Windows, one has to look at the whole package which include support, integration and a roadmap.

It's not entirely based on what it is now but what it can also be. Maybe Microsoft can be a bit slow at getting _some_ things out, but at least there's a known long-term roadmap.

I'm sure Linux will go forward, but will it be at the rate at which Windows will?

And besides, when it comes to security what fool would rely on the security of the OS alone? Security should always be a multi-tiered approach.

Its not only recently, Windows didn't get to where its at, overnight.

Windows is over 20 years old..

Its been gaining support consistenly for years, the problem is, the more people that use, the more people that have more access to it, and there will be an increase in problems. Its the law of averages.

If the UNIX community (linux, et. al.) double tomorrow, their problems would ALSO double.

Its a fact of ife.

The proof is that they have sold to a few companies and a "research" firm said so? Sorry but I have seen way to many Microsoft funded studies they later point to as fact.
I would like to see how the data was gathered, was it a comparison of how many sold? If so, how do you compare a commercial product that is sold, vs one that is downloaded free?

Unix / Linux is free to contest it, but they do not? And don't give me this hogwash about Microsoft has deep pockets, that's a cop out.

Sun is plenty big, they could refute the claim, but they dont.

Ever been to Sun? I have, remarkable, they don't have Sun at the Admin station its Windows. Their office staff? Windows. The programmers even use Windows (VMWare) but they use it.

Even sun has to realize that Windows is very good.

As another user put it, "The OS is only as good as its administrator".

I have seen plenty of machines with Unix and Linux that crash, have problems, but do you admit to having problems? Of course not..

Its all too convenient.

where did you learn to spell?

Bring back my BeOS!

Remove the stupid browser from the server OS.
Remove the reboot reqs for most patching. YOu claimed this would be reduced on XP or 2003 Server, it never really has.

Then we'll talk, MS.

- Remove the stupid browser from the server OS. -

You obviously have never heard the term "customer driven enhancement". That *stupid* browser, was CUSTOMERS complaining that they didn't want to download the *STUPID* thing from the *STUPID* internet.

I distinctly remember, the BIGGEST complaint for Windows 95, that Netscape was the big broswer at the time, and people wanted a CHOICE.

Evidently you are too young (or don't care) to remember. IE was added later, because CUSTOMERS raised holy hell with Microsoft to include it.

So go to your neighbors house, and yell at them for making Microsoft listen to their customers.

-Remove the reboot reqs for most patching-

I can't believe this is a complaint. I see now, you are just a mediocre user, and you have almost zero technical abiity.

Do you know what a service is? Do you know what drivers are? SOME, but not all, can be updated on the fly, but mostly, they have to be restarted. Microsoft COULD simply state (restart -- service) to complete the update. But that wouldn't be feasible. Its easier to just reboot so that ALL changes take place at the same time.

Windows 95 required many, many more reboots, and unless you missed out on the technical white papers, you would notice that MOST (I would even venture over 90%) DON'T require a reboot. and even if they do, its not IMMEDIATELY necessary. Reboot later.

Rebooting isn't a bad thing. It gives the OS a chance to refresh. No its not perfect, but its not all bad either.

-YOu claimed this would be reduced on XP or 2003 Server, it never really has.-

It HAS been reduced, YOU have not noticed it. Especially on XP. You are wrong.

-Then we'll talk, MS.-

I bet their phones are reserved just so they can get your phone call -rolling eyes-

Wait for Vista/Longhorn... and you will see

I like your pedantic post.
Customers did not scream for the Browser to be included into the OS. I never used 95, I've used exclusively the NT core since it came out. I don't even allow any W9x/ME clients on my network, let alone get an IP. I was a customer, and All I wanted was a quick OS. NT4, without IE, is that OS. It screamed and was so reliable back in the day compared to pretty much anything else except OS2 (and unix, of course.)
As for my experience, I started using the net my sophmore year in college, gopher browser, in 1993. When I graduated in 1996 I started working for a law firm and I've worked in the industry pretty much nonstop since then.

As for rebooting, many other OS's can handle it. I'm well aware it's a feature of vista and of "longhorn," my point is I'd like to see it in practice. There was a point that MS said the same thing about XP. Rebooting has nothing to do with services, BTW, (which can easily be stopped/restarted,) it has to do with the kernel design and in-use kernel files needing replacement.

nice :)

And a model T is more reliable than a Ferrari. oh yeah

Might not be, but it sure as heck is easier and less expensive to fix.

Windows XP x64 Edition (which is based on Server 2003) is probably the only OS I've seen that comes close to the reliability of *nix. I can run games such as Doom 3 in Ultra mode in the background while doing other tasks like browsing the web or checking my e-mail with very little slowdown. Try doing this in any 32-bit version of Windows (desktop or server).

How does faster equal reliability? Also why on earth would anyone be running Doom 3 in the background on a server? Basically you are saying a 64-bit system is faster than a 32-bit one. Duh. It's nothing to do with Windows though, it's the hardware. You said yourself x64 is based on Server 2003.

"Also why on earth would anyone be running Doom 3 in the background on a server?"

Umm...XP 64-bit edition is not Server. Windows Server 2003 x64 is the Server, and Windows Server DOES NOT work with DirectX 9 at all--so it is impossible (ithout third-party emulaters and such) to play DX9 games on Windows 2003 Server, 32-bit or 64-bit.

I do already. Plus I have Skype running. Windows XP 32-bit.

DirectX 9.0c can work in Windows Server 2003*.

*You just read a long and helpful post from Kramy.

My mistake on that part, I misread. But...

What on earth are you talking about? You can install DX9 on Server 2003 just fine; in fact Server 2003 SP1 comes with DirectX 9.0c out of the box. I ordered the trial of Server 2003 from Microsoft and EVERY game I own works perfectly with it. All you have to do is enable hardware acceleration.

In 32-bit Windows XP SP 2 if I run a game such as Doom 3 or the Sims 2 in the background my computer becomes very sluggish and almost unresponsive. I'm simply saying I don't have this problem under Windows XP x64 Edition. I expect my web browser and other productivity apps not to slow down significantly just because I'm running a high end game in the background.

As two others have said, you are incorrect. DirectX 9.0c is in fact running on my Windows Server 2003 system with no problem whatsoever. I could game on it if I so desired.

tell that to the gamers all over the boards..

They not only run games, but they "claim" its faster than XP.

Of course, they have ZERO knowledge of how Server works, but they do BELIEVE its better for games..

Personally, I don't see how an Os with way more overhead can be better for games, especially since they admittedly turn those 80% services off in the first place.. Which reduces it to XP.

Recently I booted windows with 0 services running. Hax. :)

XP being 64-bit or 32-bit has nothing to do with "stability" or performance in the case you describe. Your machine is nowhere near any 2 GB boundary for apps/system in either case, and you don't have more than 4 GB installed on your server anyway, so you basically are just demonstrating your ignorance of the subject. In all likelyhood you are exxagerating the responsiveness, using different hardware, or your 32-bit system has some other crap software installed.

My truck is better than your truck.

My laptop is more gooder than yours.

I'm more better smart than you are.

---Glad to see that even after "growing up" that people who run big business are still stuck on the my "thingy" is bigger than yours like a 14 year old kid.

why do they keep with these headlines. guess they like all the kiddy fanboys fighting

lol, microsoft might be right on this one
after all
it is cheaper for any company to pay someone who knows and maintains windows servers
than someone who knows unix/linux server infrastructure ....

Agreed.

LOL Like they are going to submit a report that said the opposite?

and the mud slinging contest between Microsoft and the open source community rages on.

This is what buisness do! this is not just some Microsoft thing, all companys do it, well the sucsefull ones anyways.

No, they don't.

Do you see 1,000,000 headlines today bashing other companies?

No, you see one.

ofcourse you do...apple bashing sony, sony bashing apple, nintendo bashing sony/MS and vice versa...you're blind if you think MS is the only company bashing other companies.

Oh yea...Sega was HUGE on bashing other companies...they even released "joke" type advertisements that outright bashed other companies.

I suppose some companies do it, those that do I don't tend to pay much attention to though. ;-)

In related news, Linux says Microsoft sux, Microsoft says Linux sux. Also, Mozilla says IE sux, Microsoft says FireFox sux...

Really...is this worthy of a headline?

LMAO well said

LOL!

Well stated, only correction to make is Linux can't say anything. You meant to say Linux Distributors say Microsoft sux.

heh

Too true!

Before the posting starts i suggest everyone put some flameretardant on before posting.

No need to, they're all retarded enough as it is.

Zing!