Linux is greener than Vista
Sayeth an analyst
THE VOLE will try to force its customer base to migrate onto Vista, but moving to Linux instead might be a greener and more cost-effective alternative.
Ted Samson, who authors the InfoWorld bog Sustainable IT, wrote that Microsoft will move to retire Windows XP starting this next July, thus effectively forcing its users to "upgrade" to Vista. He pointed out that this might also force the Vole's customers to buy a lot of new, expensive PCs that they might not otherwise need.
Initially, Samson saw only two alternatives, which he summarised as:
"1. Stick with XP and hope you can gather the licenses you need to run your business as it grows, all the while waiting for a better version of Windows to emerge down the road.
"2. Cave in and adopt Vista, either taking a headache-inducing piecemeal approach or an all-out expensive (and again, wasteful) mass migration."
But his readers suggested a third alternative: move to Linux instead. He quotes one who wrote:
"I am suggesting VMware on Linux with your current crop of XP licenses. Mission-critical stuff that must run on XP is available, meanwhile you can be working on migrating everything to a native Linux environment that will not toss you on your keister in a few years. Further, the one big thing coming down the pike, 64-bit computing, is fully supported with Linux, so you don't have to worry about being able to fully utilize the next generation."
Hear, hear. Linux runs just fine on existing desktop hardware, even on PCs that are several years old now. Give it a 1.5Ghz processor and 512MB of RAM, and Linux is more than adequate to support business tasks. No screaming 3Ghz CPU or 2GB of RAM are needed to run Linux, in contrast to the additional resources demanded to run Microsoft's deplorable Windows Vista.
Samson agrees, mentioning that not only is Linux less resource intensive than Windows at present, but Linux is shaping up as a greener choice for the future.
In addition, he says that moving to thin-clients might also be a viable alternative to Vista. But we're not too sure that's really going to fly. µ
L'INQ
InfoWorld
Comments
Count the beans again pal..
Thats total BS.As a company, try calling the MS tech support because your application doesnt run properly on VMWare and see if they support you!
Then you will have to add the cost of a VMWare consultant.
Also, the strain that supporting linux requires from a tech support dept. (financially mostly, as in wages) means the total cost of ownership of your machines will go thru the roof.
Lets be honest here.. the world + dog knows his way on a Windows pc these days.. cant say the same thing for linux.
Biased article and very superficial..
If it ain't bust, don't fix it
The machine I use all the time is a Pentium III laptop with 512 MB RAM running Windows 2000 that I bought in 2001. Way back then it did everything I needed it to do. Surprise, surprise, it still does.I have replaced hard drives a couple of times and I replaced the battery two years ago. Everything else works well.
I download new software on a regular basis (almost all open source).
Why do people keep playing the disposable computer game?
Right
How many business users do you know who are going to be enthused about having to boot XP on VMware just to use Microsoft Office? Open Office is slow, buggy, and has a pathetic feature set.Anyway, what are you doing arguing that 512MB of RAM is enough, while at the same time advocating 64-bit computing? Stupid.
Lolz
Cheaper....yes.But lets never mind the fact that most administrators within a company no nothing about running Linux in a desktop environment. So, big mistake on deploying an OS that support is not going to know anything about.
Lets also forget the fact that people are still complete dumbasses when it comes to Windows, and we've been using it for YEARS. "Click on the what..a cog? WTF is a cog?"
So...Extra hours spent having to train end users on their days off...disgruntled employess pissed off about coming in to use some computer software thats supposed to be cheaper, on their days off...A headache like none other from the support staff because most of them arent going to know about Linux.
I dunno man... I think someone got fucked in the ass by Tux, but enjoyed the reach around.
Linux is greener
In till Linux gets to the point that the op system will use the hardware on most of the computers that are out, it will not be any better than what is being used now. I have used Linux for years now and I do like it. But it is not ready for the masses yet.Wait till they try to get sound and other drivers running on there machines. And to get all done.
If the Linux makers can get the drivers for the products that are out, then I think Linux would take over a very large part of the op system market.But lest that happen Linux will not be any better than what we have now.
Thin Clients
alot of companies are actually looking at thin clients now. The latest ones draw jsut over 4 watts each. Couple this with phenom so that you can throttle individual cores on your main server and you save a massive wedge on power, and hardware in the medium term.Add to that, many people only use 1 or two apps, and you literally jsut grant them access to those apps, again, not serving apps they don't need.
session cards meaning all those cramped offices can now have door access, and application sessions managed on the same card.
Microsoft are literally driving a revolution through pushing out xp.
?
Linux actually supports nearly any configuration these days. They even have a built in bluetooth stack and everything; Also you wouldn't have to run VMWARe you could still dual boot with your XP licenses for Using Office if open office isn't your cup o tea.A 4th alternative
Stick with XP, loudly proclaim that you do so, and gather a bunch of other companies that have also decided to do so.Have everyone loudly proclaim that XP is here to stay and MS should not terminate it before giving us a proper OS.
Repeat proclamations until MS recants. If enough companies do so, it will happen.