Microsoft?s next move in the Windows vs. Linux battle
Posted on Sep 16, 2004 at 12:28 PM by John Foley
Are you convinced that Windows environments are less expensive to own and operate than Linux computers? Martin Taylor, the manager behind Microsoft’s anti-Linux strategy, believes the company’s Get The Facts marketing campaign – along with a bunch of one-on-one meetings with customers – has effectively muted the old argument that Linux is cheaper than Windows just because the open-source OS can be downloaded for free. Going forward, Taylor plans to put more emphasis on how Windows compares to Linux when used for specific purposes, or what he calls “scenario stacks.”
It was just about a year ago that Microsoft began making the case that Windows’ total cost of ownership was lower than Linux by presenting data in the form of research reports from IT research and advisory firms, including IDC and Meta Group. (See Microsoft’s ‘Facts’ Campaign.) Microsoft put the focus initially on TCO, according to Taylor, because whenever he tried to talk about Microsoft's broader value proposition, the conversation got stopped short. “Customers were so jaded on TCO and security, I couldn’t even get into a dialogue on the value of our platform,” Taylor said in a recent interview. But Microsoft’s Get The Facts data was undermined by the fact that Microsoft funded the reports generated by the research firms. “People were kind of questioning the commissioned reports,” Taylor admits. More recently, Microsoft has posted non-funded reports on its Gets The Facts page. Taylor also points to the “commercialization effect” caused by the business models of Linux vendors, who have their own revenue and profit obligations to meet.
Taylor believes Microsoft has addressed the perception that Windows is less secure than Linux, through development-process improvements at Microsoft and by calling attention to the vulnerabilities of open-source software. What’s more, intellectual-property issues swirling around Linux have worked in Microsoft’s favor, Taylor says, given Microsoft’s promise to indemnify customers from potential IP claims against Windows.
So what’s next in Microsoft’s fight against Linux? That emphasis is shifting to comparisons of how the two platforms, and the software that layers on top of them, perform when used for different kinds of applications. Microsoft has “pretty much every distribution” of Linux running in a lab on its campus, where it’s putting the competition through the paces. Look for side-by-side comparisons between, say, Windows and Novell’s SuSE Linux software stack, or the Red Hat suite. Taylor argues Microsoft has the more complete architecture. “There’s no design by design in the open-source world,” he says. And he relishes the chance to show customers how Linux desktops compare to Windows desktops. “I will fly to [customers] and give them whatever copy of Linux they want and watch them try to use Linux on the desktop,” he says. “Linux is just not easy to use for your average user.”
Linux vendors, of course, have made significant inroads. Many Unix users migrating to Intel machines have chosen Linux, not Windows, to do it, and Linux has a stronger story to tell on supercomputers. Taylor concedes Microsoft has to improve its pitch in both areas.
Earlier this week, Linux vendors took steps to avoid the spawning effect that hurt Unix by announcing plans to rally around a single version of Linux. In doing so, they helped ensure that Linux development would center around one version of the operating system, providing a stronger defense against Taylor's software-stack strategy.
All things considered, Taylor says Microsoft has sized up its Linux competition – and has a better handle on what to expect. “We’re where we want to be,” he says, adding, “We’ve got great line of sight to where we know we can win.” It's an end point, however, that Microsoft has yet to reach.
For more on this subject, see Microsoft’s Mr. Linux Responds.
This post falls under this topic(s):
Or read posts on these other topics:
So, Microsoft says they now have "a line of sight" to where they can win against Linux. That will be interesting to see if it's true since what they've done so far looks more like a childs painting( all over the map ) than any kind of plan.
After all, Linux is taking UNIX marketshare right? And it's customers are all talking about Linux TCO vs UNIX TCO instead of vs Windows TCR( Total Cost of Renting ). I can't wait to hear what Microsoft starts telling us "it's customers are saying" next.
Posted by: Barney at September 17, 2004, 11:36 AM"Linux vendors, of course, have made significant inroads. Many Unix users migrating to Intel machines have chosen Linux, not Windows, to do it, and Linux has a stronger story to tell on supercomputers. >>>Taylor concedes Microsoft has to improve its pitch in both areas."<<<
Microsoft has to improve it's pitch!!!????
This is why MS is doomed to long term failure. It has become a windows software producer instead of a software company. MS should embraced the open source community. Not by open sourcing the MS OS but by creating and porting applications in the open source arena. Research and developement at MS should long ago have experimented with concepts like. MS-LINUX, MS-BSD or Versions of Windows with an underlying OPEN source/UNIX core. They would see first hand how it would affect thier base product offering. They could have solved most security, memory and 64-bit issues by using the open source community as resurce instead of an adversary. Instead they concentrate on "Improving its pitch."
Posted by: Ira Downing at September 17, 2004, 11:43 AMI think it's safe to say that no intelligent person could ever conclude that it is NOT in Microsoft's best interest to make themselves as incompatible as possible. Developers of Linux (which happens to be a community of extremely intelligent and talented individuals) work extremely hard at making thier platform play friendly with all other platforms (SAMBA is a prime example of this, as is OpenOffice). But what would Microsoft ever do if suddenly nobody had to come running to them for all their computing needs? That seems to be their "Pitch," if you will. Isolate themselves as much as possible and instill within consumers a fear of anything that might have a slight learning curve but in the end, offers a better product at a greater value.
Furthermore, the only reason Microsoft can stake any type of user-friendly claim is because so many people are simply "used" to using Microsoft products. I know this because I was once this type of person. However, one day I decided to be brave and try something new, and the interesting this is, I'm better because of it! There are so many great innovations that the Linux and Open Source community have to offer. I believe if people would take a break from the familier to try something else, they would find that there are clearly better options available than Microsoft, and the interesting part is, they're all FREE.
Posted by: Avian at September 17, 2004, 12:39 PMIt's a common misconception that Linux is only taking UNIX marketshare. Microsoft's marketshare has been steadily dropping these last few years, and most of that drop has not been to Apple. Linux, on the other hand has been growing massively, and not just on servers and corporate workstations, but there are a seriously growing number of home users as well.
As for Microsoft's FUD campaign. I'm sure they'll keep it up, I'm sure they'll keep dishing out lies, keep pulling underhanded and outright illegal tactics, and do anything they can to maintain their weath and power in the computer world. Why should their tactics change now? It's what they've always done. No different than any other criminal organization that resorts to fraud, theft, blackmail, and extortion.
Posted by: Liam at September 17, 2004, 12:56 PMMartin Taylor, 1st Mate on the Titanic.
Posted by: John Bailo at September 17, 2004, 05:10 PMTypical Marketing strategy of Microsoft.
"Linux is difficult to use compared to Windows". It was so 2 years ago and that truth is quickly dying. Just as Sun got screwed by Linux, so will Microsoft. Its just a matter of time.
Once again, Microsoft can't keep up with the changing software world, so they turn to clever marketing and propoganda; it's too bad they don't take all that time and effort and do something productive with it - such as creating software that is almost bulletproof. It would appear that MS's Mr. Linux is doing his research in the light of "finding the bad things" and incorporating that into the marketing.
Doesn't anyone at Microsoft remember 12 years ago that they were the LEAST liked GUI desktop environment?
Posted by: Stephen Kuhn at September 17, 2004, 08:12 PMEither you want to use Linux enough to learin it ...or you dont. Just like everytime windows has a new version we all have to re-learn the interface and where things are and of course what bugs lurk where. My advice to the n00b is this:
Pick a GNU distro Slackware or Debian. They have been around forever and don't have a sales quota.
Research This distro..Debian's apt cannot be beat for package installation!
Get past the Linux learning curve..don't dual boot forever.
Dont buy into the FUD. Linux hasnt even flinched in shadow of M$. GNU / FSF don't have a Marketing Department just success stories.
-Nx
Posted by: NixerX at September 17, 2004, 08:16 PMI just did a quick search for employee training costs to upgrade from Windows 2000 XP. Most reports estimate, at the low side, $50-$150 per employee. I also did a look at the cost to train employees to use Linux. Those reports showed the cost, on the high side, to be around $350-$400 per employee.
Just that would be a hindrance, you might think, BUT, consider the TCO as MS likes to use, and you need to factor in the shorter lifespan of the hardware to stay current with the software and the fact that you can't reuse old hardware for specific functions like Linux (since the OS that WILL run on the hardware in 5 years is no longer supported), the software license ($100-$300) and push that forward 12 years.
In that 12 years you need 3 upgrades from MS (let us give them the BOTD and say we pay and average of $80 per desktop to upgrade just the OS), the office version, just once in 12 years (yeah right) at $350 (low side) and hardware 3 times, MIN. We have a grand total of ($100*4 for training, 80*4 for OS, $350 for office upgrade, $400*3 for hardware and we end up with a bare min. cost of $2270 per employee for that 12 year period).
Take the Linux, sum up $450 to train over, then $50 per train for each upgrade (and even that is probably not needed), No OS upgrade cost, 2.5 upgrades (considering we reuse hardware), $80 Office upgrade if we buy another copy of Star Office and we get ($550 for training, 2.5*400 for hardware and $80 for Office) Total of $1630.
Even stretching the numbers it is quite obvious that Linux is cheaper over the long term. And to top it off, the idea that MS admins are cheaper over the long term is not historically supported. If you looked at the cost of a Windows Admin when NT first came out, you would have seen them as much more costly. Since Windows became dominant, the market adapted and the increase in "qualified" administrators caused cost to drop. The same will happen with Linux admins as more It professionals enter the market.
Posted by: DrewL at September 17, 2004, 11:49 PMHi;
I am a former Microsoft employee and currently a Linux-centric consultant. In general, I think that Linux does have a slightly higher TCO because most of my customers (may not be a representative sample) impliment Linux in ways which are not standard out-of-the-box scenarios. This is different from how Windows is implimented (rarely are defaults changed for small business users).
In general, however, the benefits which open source in general provides far outweighs the marginally higher costs. Such customers often end up with more stable systems which fit their workflow better.
Microsoft's sales pitch strikes me as somewhat delisioned. There is an idea that they are winning, when indeed they are only holding back the tide temporarily and someday, it will still consume them. Linux *is* making inroads into the desktop and the sorts of servers where Windows has ruled for the last decade. It is also a less expensive option for embedded device development when any level of scale of production is obtained.
Posted by: Chris Travers at September 18, 2004, 12:04 AMThis security report of M$ really makes me wonder, I currently use both Windows XP and Linux and by comparison i would have to say Linux is more secure then windows. Im supprised if i don't have adware on my computer after a week. I just have to wonder how does it get there I don't ask it to be there, Woot it must be some kinda security flaw. In linux so far i haven't had any virus/adware/security breach of any kind. I do realise that some Free software has security flaws, but In my honest opinion, I bleave they get fixed quicker and if your really concerned about a hole , Hey you can always fix it yourself (can't do that in windows).
After useing both I have to say these reports attempt to say that black is white and witch selected facts, you can conclude that, But usage of both proves otherwise.
damn i hate microsoft
Posted by: Paul at September 18, 2004, 10:43 AMHere is my TCO of Windows vs. Linux: a 25 digit password; everytime I have to reinstall my windows os: on my Linux box, nothing but setup user accounts.
Posted by: Freddie Montana at September 18, 2004, 11:10 AMI was brought-up using MS Windows from 3.1 to XP, with XP I had had it! I got tired of needing to wait weeks and even months for a bug-fix, i got tired of viruses and needing to spend even more money on extra software just to get a small inkling of security! i got tired of having to re-install every 6mos to get rid of the damn filesystem bugs (NTFS has known flaws!) and i hated being told to "Contact your isp or network administrator for more help" I AM THE ADMIN!!! Why can't I fix it!?!?! since i've swapped over to linux cold-turkey so to speak i haven't had ANY security issues and i've learned more about how computers work! now with linux I tell the computer what to do, it doesn't tell me what i can or can't do. That is true power! I've moved from SuSE 8.2, Gentoo, SuSE 9.1, Vector, and Evil Entity and i love that I can incorporate all of the things that I want into my system and that it's freely available to use and develop. If Windows is so great why can't i keep it from crashing and getting infected with viruses? i spent over $1,000.00 in less than a month just trying to keep viruses from getting in. With Linux if there is a flaw in a matter of hours or maybe days the flaw is fixed and nothing but a memory. WINDOWS IS A VIRUS TO THE WORLD OF OFFICE AND HOME USERS, IT SHOULD BE ILLEGAL TO INSTALL TO A SERVER!!!
Posted by: PrototypeX at September 18, 2004, 08:01 PMIts me again, These success storys I see here just amaze me, Perhaps Not many Windows users read InformationWeek, Or perhaps, as we can see from these success storys that microsofts "Indipendent Inverstigations" are just a load of bs
Posted by: Paul at September 18, 2004, 10:01 PMUntil I can walk into Circuit City and have a large selection of Linux-compatible software/hardware, I'll continue to use Windows. XP is better than any Linux OS for software and hardware compatibility.
If Linux were the most popular desktop OS, it would be the target of malware/viruses.
Regards,
Paul
In response to Paul's post...
I think you are missing the whole point. The idea behind Open Source is that you DON'T HAVE to go into Circuit City and buy compatible software. Most Linux Distributions come with thousands of packages already available to choose from. Take Debian for instance. One can choose from 4000+ software packages to fit all conceivable needs. That's the beauty of Linux and Open Source. Everything you need (From Office, to Databases, to tracking Finances) is already available. There is even a large variety of games to waste your time with. And if that's not enough, most games (Like the Unreal Series) come with a Linux installer on the PC disks.
As for hardware compatibility, I don't think anybody can claim to have installed the latest release of Windows XP on a 133Mhz computer. Yet, many use Linux regularly on such classes of computers.
Finally, while it may be true that Linux has its fair share of vulnerabilities, admins can exercise a lot more control over a Linux box than they ever could a Windows machine. Everything, down to the smallest detail, can be fine-tuned to limit or restrict access in any way an admin sees fit. On top of that, the Open Source community takes security VERY seriously. Mozilla was probably the first browser and email program to block unwanted pop-ups and SPAM. Even on Windows computers, you can't be much more secure than when using Mozilla, and that is just one example of thousands.
Posted by: Avian at September 20, 2004, 10:55 AMwell...lisnux is infact taking the market share of Unix and any other operating system..and i would not be worng if i say that Mandrake is the mirror copy of Microsoft Xp (commonly known as Xtreme Pain) ..One of the most out standing thing of linux is its Live cds...u just have to put and every things is waiting for you...infact the term waiting i use in the sence that operating system waiting for instruction what to execute first ...
linux....RuLz
From personal experience, running quite a large website (and extreme database use -- hundreds of queries/minute 24/7)
I kept having to expand hardware running on MSSQL 2000. Last month, I moved everything to MySQL. Suddenly CPU use dropped from 80-90% to 20-35%. The site has become tons faster.
Deletes of rows in tables has becomes 20x faster. MSSQL is all just marketing in my view.
I used to shy away from linux products, now I'm really getting into it. -- on the servers alone I'm saving approx. $50,000 per year on hardware and software provided the site doesn't grow further.
At home I had to switch over from Windows to Linspire due to extreme virus attacks (1800+ emails infected per DAY, I could filter out approx 1600, the remaining ones were "risks")
As for learning curve, that's become invalid. My information technology challenged girlfriend works just as good, if not better in Linspire than in Windows.
Email, websurfing, Staroffice, clicking on icons -- all identical to windows. Maybe a 10 minute learning curve because the button didn't say START.
As for large offices. I disagree with $350 - $450 per user. If you have an office with 1000 employees, only 10 of them have to learn something new, install it for the other 990, and to that huge group things will be 99% the same. It will just *look* a little different.
Now, pop the XP interface onto KDE, and they might not even notice that they're not running windows.
just my 2 cents.
Posted by: tony at September 20, 2004, 03:00 PMPrimitive behaviour.
A major thing in good sales behaviour is presenting the quality of your own company or product rather then comparing yourself with a competitive brand to prove you're "better". The last it a presentation of weakness. Also, in the end we all need other visions around us to produce better products and to reflect on what we are doing. In this Microsoft's "get the facts" action we recognize this worlds fear for "different idea's" and the resulting gorilla-behaviour: present pure ($$)power to show you are right. Maybe Microsoft realises that they have not been able up to now to create the link to the user behind the computer. Keep on working on it, I would say, and try to learn from looking around. This would do a better job.
Posted by: Leonard at September 21, 2004, 06:24 AMI have to admit to being more comfortable in the M$ gui domain only because of familiarity with their product. I have been dabbling with linux for a couple yrs now and not spent enough time to get familiar (confident) with cli till recently, and guess what - Im really starting to enjoy the freedom it gives me in my OS OF CHOICE. The thing that MACROHARD fail to recognise (read publicly acknowledge) is that Linux users have choice and plenty of it.. I have mucked around with Rehdat/fedora till recently cos it was easy to install for noob's. I gave debian a go the other day and bloody hell I was genuinely shocked (and excited) to see there are thousands of FREE programs available from toys to proffessional CAD all through your local supplier APT-GET. The point about LINUX is - FREEDOM - not "free". As a Linux user you have real choice at your fingertips. You have the freedom to choose whatever flavour you want and to configure it however you want, and if it aint out there you can make if you know how - MACROHARD must be crapping themselves - theyve already admitted to their shareholders that they expect change - FOR THE WORSE.
MACROHARD are currently losing tech savy or tech curious customers who were never happy with their product anyway, the real problem for them is the next step in Linux - the desktop for the average joe - and its just around the corner. Just look at the latest offerings from KDE and GNOME - impressive stuff.
And for me I really dont give a crap about all this SCO legalese nonsense - nothin but a smoke screen designed to distract us from the path to enlightenment..
LONG LIVE LINUX - ITS WORTH IT.
Posted by: robert at September 21, 2004, 06:53 PMWe use SuSe Linux to run the big apps with full control via X-term. Grudingly, we're still on Win98 for web browsing and webpage composition. But the bottom line is our box repair experience with XP, which ships on new OEM boxes.
I have never before in my life seen such a clunky, incredibly slow, counterintuitive, and overblown piece of junk. I thought Win2K was bad, but XP is utterly stupid. People need to compute, not hang around waiting for a fast modern box to draw idiotic XP screen graphics.
Posted by: Frank Kelly at September 26, 2004, 11:08 AMI tried using Slackware 2.1 years ago and couldn't get the cdrom to work. A couple of years ago I jumped back into Linux (Redhat 8) and I loved it. There's lots of non-Microsoft choices now with Linux, FreeBSD, Beos and you can even try Solaris and they are all FREE, all it takes is some time.
I used Xenix and Unix System V it the 80's and I recall it was pretty expensive... several hundred dollars at least.. which was too expensive for the average hobbyist. Now broadband is reasonably inexpensive and look what happened... a virtual explosion of free applications have appeared and people are having fun programming.
I have actually set up a few people with Linux and they are quite happy to join me on the Non-Microsoft plane. I never really liked Microsoft.. I can remember studying desqview, topview and Windows 2.0 to see which one worked the best. Both Windows 2.0 and Topview were complete dogs.
I closing I wish I had stuck with the Unix world from the beginning. Now we have the best of both worlds... the power and stability of Unix and the freedom of Linux. On the "other side" I'm seeing the price of Windows creep up and up with each incarnation and a black box mentality.
Posted by: Mark Longridge at October 30, 2004, 01:27 PMWe run a mix of Windows, Debian Linux, SuSe Linux, FreeBSD, and OpenBSD servers. Our monitors from IP Sentry and and Nagios do not lie about stability: 100% uptime on the BSD machines, 99.999% uptime on the Linux machines, and between 97.6% and 99.5% uptime on Windows machines. Security record for our Linux/*BSD systems is perfect not a single break-in for the 5 years they have been running. Our Windows servers on the other hand have not had that track record: most recent break-in was only a little over a month ago... We only remain on any Windows platforms due to proprietary software. Ease of use of our server systems is a complete non-issue. I was hired as with Linux and *BSD expertise and several Windows administrators in other departments are being paid more than I am. I am also seeing more and more Comp. Sci. people graduate that have an excellent understanding of Linux and foresee this to only increase as Linux is emphasized more in CSci programs.
Posted by: Don at November 01, 2004, 08:17 PMThis is a public forum. CMP Media and its affiliates are not responsible for and do not control what is posted herein. CMP Media makes no warranties or guarantees concerning any advice dispensed by its staff members or readers.
Community standards in the message center do not permit hate language, excessive profanity, or other patently offensive language. Please be aware that all information posted to this forum becomes the property of CMP Media LLC and may be edited and republished in print or electronic format as outlined in CMP Media's Terms of Service.
Important Note: The Message Center is NOT intended for commercial messages or solicitations of business.
