Migrate to Linux instead of Vista

Very nice math. I'm sure porting all business applications to Linux is a non-issue (who'd need more than Office, right), IT support/helpdesk etc. naturally do not need to be trained to use linux (nor do users for that matter) and all system policies, system management tools and processes work automagically no matter what platform. I'm also positive that all the investments made to MS development tools and architectures (.NET/ActiveX/VS/BizTalk/etc) can just be dumped and employees will start coding internal apps in perl with vi, no problem.

Newsflash, it's not the bloody windows license costs that are the issue.

It's amazing that all you need to do to get some press these days is to pan Vista, and suddenly it's news. Too bad that about 90% of this article is nonsense. The Inquirer should be ashamed for not doing a little bit of research on PC World's claims.

First off, most companies do not choose to upgrade their operating system on a whim. In most cases they only upgrade operating systems when they get new hardware, which blows most of the "Vista needs new hardware" argument out of the water. If for some reason you do want to upgrade the OS without replacing the hardware (and in the business world this is rarely done) then it's because you have already done a cost-benefit analysis and decided that the upgrade offers sufficient benefit to justify the cost, in which case the cost argument goes out the window. Alternatively you may make this decision because the new OS has some "killer feature" that you need to have, in which case a Linux distro is unlikely to be a suitable alternative.

Secondly, the hardware prices quoted are outrageous. Unlike a certain INQ writer, I did my homework and decided to see what was available from the various OEMs. I based my survey on the notion that Vista runs just fine on my laptop, which uses a 1.6GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 2GB of RAM. It also ran like a champ on my previous desktop, a 2.2 GHz Athlon X2 with 2GB of RAM.

HP's web site lists the following config for a typical "business line" desktop:

HP dc5750 ($769)
Windows Vista Business 32 with downgrade to Windows® XP Professional 32 custom installed
2.7 GHz Athlon X2
2GB of DDR2 800 MHz RAM
160GB SATA hard disk
16X SATA LightScribe DVD+/-RW
ATI Radeon X300 graphics with dual outputs
3 year warranty and support

Wow, I just undercut PC World's "minimum" price by 23%, and that not only includes a very capable business class desktop that will run Vista very well, but it also includes both Vista AND XP!

Let's see what Dell has:

Optiplex 330 Desktop ($670)
Windows Vista® Business Bonus-Windows® XP Professional loaded
2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo
2GB of DDR2 667 MHz RAM
160GB SATA hard disk
16X DVD+/-RW SATA
Integrated Video, Intel® GMA3100
3 year warranty and support
Dell 19 inch E198WFP Widescreen Flat Panel, Analog

Holy crap! I just undercut PC World's "minimum" price by 33%, and that not only includes a very capable business class desktop that will run Vista very well, but it also includes both Vista, XP, AND a 19" widescreen monitor!!!

Am I that much smarter than the people at PC World?

But here's the third, and possibly most important point: nobody can support Linux. Yes, you can buy support from RedHat or Suse or whoever your vendor is, but for the day to day end user support and administration issues, who is going to support it? Certainly not your "local community of techies," because most of them actually like getting paid for their work. That's assuming that you can find them to begin with. What if you don't live in a larger city? Heck, I live in a city of 1.5 million with a very healthy tech industry, and my company has a hell of a time even finding people with Linux skills, let alone hiring them. Sure, you can hit Monster/Dice/whatever and come up with 100+ resumes in my area that list Linux experience, but when they get to the interview you're lucky to find one or two that know the difference between a symlink and a spatula. On most resumes "Linux experience" really means "I downloaded a copy of Fedora once and installed it on some old hardware." So you're stuck with either overpaying for someone who doesn't know what they're doing, or you have to pay to send people off to Linux training. I wonder how much that would cost?

Finally, the fourth point: applications. Yes, Linux has a ton of free and open source applications available that cover most of the usual office needs, but when you get to niche market software it often falls flat. It's nearly impossible to compete with the installed base of MILLIONS of applications written for Windows. But even where you can find replacements, you can't find software that offers feature for feature replacements, especially in the infrastructure space. Yes, there are free alternatives to Exchange and Active Directory, but none of them integrate as well as Exchange and AD. I have yet to see a free/OSS Exchange alternative that handles scheduling and collaboration as well as Exchange, and also allows web access and push email synchronization with smart phones. You might be able to cobble together a collection of different products that do it, but how well integrated are they and who do you call when one of the three pieces isn't playing nice?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Linux is a viable alternative for some companies. I just think that the market for that alternative is much, much smaller than people would have you believe. I also happen to think it's incredibly misleading for PC World to claim that you can save money by taking your desktop PCs that are currently running XP and Office (that you've already paid for!) and switching them to Linux.

I'm wondering whether the author actually did any research for this piece of FUD?

There is no way on the face of the planet that businesses will pay anything like $300 a copy for Windows. None. A full (i.e. not upgrade) OEM copy of Vista Business retails for $134 at one off prices. Similarly there's no way they pay $500 for Office. The volume licencing costs are *significantly* lower than that.

If you don't run Aero Glass then the hardware requirements aren't significantly higher than they would be for running XP well either. Most companies use a rolling hardware upgrade plan anyway; so whilst some systems may not be capable of running Vista there's a good chance that most will, although I agree some may need a RAM upgrade.

Conversely I suspect the cost of retraining staff to use Linux would be considerable. Most users seem to get confused by changing Windows or Office versions, and Linux is a completely different kettle of fish entirely; so I'd say the training costs would be significant for the majority of folks. If you don't train them, then I can guarantee support costs will escalate massively.

Love to hate MS, right?
In my experience, supporting true "users" causes many gray hairs. At best, moving to a new platform would loose hours of productivity and require additional IT support do to higher call volumn to save what 2k? I do not believe this econmics is sound.

Perhaps the biggest selling point would be users not knowing how to surf and waste time on the new platform... now that could be a factor.

When it comes to cost, man hours are a HUGE burden. Moving to a platform that will demand more man hours in support and user time is significantly more expensive.

Love MS or hate MS, people being familar with a platform increases efficency.

The problem with switching an organisation over to Linux is things look much better on paper.

The biggest problem I see is the getting people used to the new system, in terms of IT support and users. Sending everybody off to training is nice, but can organisations in a time of impending recession afford the loss of staff time, let alone cost of training and then loss of productivity, and then factoring in the time they will stand around the water cooler complaining about the new IT system.

I hope people aren't so naive to think they would "save" $1k per PC. 
First, only a fool would pay extra to buy an obsolete OS (XP). Ignore the media's FUD, be real. (And Office PRO is about half that cost at OEM, but I get it that too many people don't pre-plan their investments).

Going Linux rarely saves lots on small-mid scales as the support costs far outweigh any minute hardware savings. How much time will be wasted with your staff trying to find out how to do things, how to make their presentations do "what they did with Windows...", trying to convert files sent to them to something their Linux can use? I suspect that measly $1k would be gone in the first month just in lost productivity in most cases. All that easy to use and familiar security, accounting software - nope, you'll all need to learn new programs. Don't forget that not everyone is tech-savvy like most of your readers. I still see high-level managers that cannot change the time zone on a Windows box, how am I supposed to teach them anything in Linux?

I'm not saying that the MS solution is necessarily better, but the cost savings argument just doesn't wash with me when you take into account all the factors. Fact is, more than 90% of the world uses Windows at home, and that familiarity or proficiency makes for better efficiency in the workplace. Windows trained IT staff are also more plentiful and likely less costly as well. 

I'm glad to see the Linux ecosystem growing, but it still has a long, long way to go before I see it as "costing" less, all things considered.

Apple is missing such a huge business opportunity here by not making their OS hardware portable. I don't really care what Apple's hardware/software business philosophy is.... the gains that are possible are much greater than any benefits to staying with their current strategy. Business are in the mood for alternatives after years of getting jammed by Microsoft and now getting Vista, a product they don't even want, being jammed down their throats. Microsoft market share is just asking to be taken. 

I respect Linux, but it still doesn't get it in terms of an end user desktop experience. 

This is from an Apple/Steve Jobs hater =)

Just notice: 
no Spyware/Adware for Linux
no virus (no need for antivirus soft)


You forgot the hour(s) of costly labor that it takes to kill off - reconfigure all the unnecessary BS that the vole insists should be running by default.

BTW – can you pretty please stop call Vista an upgrade when all the world plus dog knows it is a major downgrade from XP

I wonder if you actually work in the IT field, or if you just learn about it on TV and make suppositions based on what you see.

First off, most major manufacturers ship their business class stuff with XP downgrades IN THE BOX. HP's Smart Buy business line actually comes pre-downgraded, or at least it does in Canada. So in other words, if I buy a Vista machine for my customer, and I still get XP. Lenovo's Topsellers all ship with XP downgrades as well.

And I am tired of always hearing from you guys that Vista has such high hardware requirements. You can get a dual-core processor for $60 these days, and 2GB of RAM for $50. Those costs are pretty low if you ask me. And if you consider that businesses in the latter years of their leases are using XP with 512MB of RAM and a mid-range P4, Vista Business with 2GB is going to be much faster than what they are used to, even with a crappy dual-core.

Minimum of $700 to run Vista? For running it in an office envoronment, you can get a full system that runs Vista just fine, for $500. As for your cost of $300 for Vista Business, do you really think that businesses buy retail copies? An OEM copy would be included in the $500 machine I mentioned above, and if they are upgrading multiple machines in an office, then they would get a volume licence, which is even cheaper than OEM. So your costs are way out of whack, and I can only assume, purposely skewed to make MS look bad. 

And then your summary, which reads something like: "So because it's expensive to upgrade, it's smart to go with Linux" does not really cut it. What about the fact that everyone knows how to use Microsoft, and your average user does not know anything about Linux. That hurts productivity, and would likely require retraining. And what about the fact that the whole business world runs on MS Office. Not to mention the costs involved in changing over servers and whatnot, retraining IT staff so they know how to support the new Linux environment. And that's just off the top of my head.

Because you don't like Microsoft does not mean Linux is the answer. I dislike the Vole as much as anyone, but for most common users, Linux is not a really viable options. Most business customers I deal with can barely turn on their computers and click on the internet, so switching to Linux is not a wise option. At least Vista is similar to what they know.

Yes Microsoft sucks, but it's still the best option for 90% of the world. Stop trying to push Linux on everyone.

I moved a school from XP to GNU/Linux. The cost per seat was half what it would have been with Vista and I know the performance was better. On-going costs were less in many ways: energy consumption, maintenance, waste, taxes, etc. and the system operated extremely well in speed and reliability. XP did work but we were expanding and it was silly to expand to a dead OS. The expansion cost less with GNU/Linux than XP, too. We had no hardware problems that we would not have had with any OS: a disc failure and a memory module failure in two years of operation.

"...or office productivity applications licences"

The very office productivity suites that the non-technical office worker has used for years and is the only one he/she understands.

The cost alone in training and the reduced productivity due to using an unfamiliar environment totally nullifies the cost ratio between Vista and Linux...

Enough studies have shown that the SUPPORT costs for using Linux instead of Windows are vastly higher, not to mention the lack of most business software for Linux. Good luck getting any of the Sage apps, or any of the other common business applications needed to run a business to work on Linux. And let's not get started on the costs of retraining the employees to use it.

I'm not trying to discount the benefits of Linux, but it's not even close to as clean-cut as you make it out to be. The fact that there are IT firms who know Linux, and geeks aplenty, doesn't mean they come close to the number, knowledge, or availability of those who know Windows environments. There are just too many hurdles in switching to Linux that make it vastly more expensive under most business environments, even if they get to keep their current (probably crappy and unreliable) hardware.

You are fogetting somthings in your assesment.

1) hiring extra IT staff who are fimiliar with linux to run and service the linux machine.

2) difference in the way the Offices work.

3) training the employees to use linux os vs windows XP

This will all add to the cost of switching over. Some of it is going to be permanent cost. Depending on the # of machines the difference will be less or more.

I think this article lacks thought. Opensource operating systems only work in small business applications - where they develop or run applications in Java and have no dependancy on Microsoft's office application. How many small businesses enjoy that? I'd say best case 5%. 

In Medium to Enterprise businesses deploying a Linux distro is impossible - think of the user/administrator re-training cost, think of the incompatability costs assosicated with different software across large companies... then theres MS Exchange - an infastructure many businesses build themselves around. 

Most businesses need Windows machines to run their apps. Although most trained monkeys familiar with Windows should be able make the switch to KDE/Gnome rather easily... yeah that doesn't happen. Nice thought but isn't happening. This would only be possible for very small tech savvy businesses to save a few bucks.

I'm a happy Linux user for years.
I do like it because:
1. I can do with it whatever I wish, but i know what i want from my OS (most people don't)
2. it is hard to brake, but even broken OS wont result in any data loss and more important (this thing is impossible or very close to impossible in M$) in any configuration of all apps of all users and system settings on the computer. It's not hard to reinstall windows, but it's to painful to go through all themes, shortcuts, add-ons etc for each app. After ~7 years, migration from Debian to Ubuntu to Gentoo, back to Ubuntu, Ubuntu 64bit and finaly Gentoo 64bit, all settings migrated the only thing i do remember that needed to be reconfigured is startup "Services" and networking.
3. I hate to reboot for any reason except hardware upgrades.
4. I don't like to go online to get UPDATED drivers for hardware
5. I can't find reason why should I spend my money on M$.

But the truth is that most people will use what their neighbor/friend use. This give them confidence. They prefer something that they used to, something that others can advice or help. Most of them do know that to install program you have to doubleclick it, go through Next, Accept, Next, Next, Finish. If they don't, friend can help them.
In Linux it's easier, but how many people around you know where to mark checkbox and pres OK for your distribution packaging system ? what to do if the program not there.
They will prefer to pay (or use illegal copy), pay twice a year for technician that will tell them that Linux is "Monster" because otherwise he will jobless.
I did this transaction for my family (parents, uncles, cousins etc.) two-three years ago because of my wasted evenings on fixing their broken infected OSes. They was begging for me to put XP's back. I gave up after few month, and then i was surprised. They called after week or two and asked to switch back to Ubuntu.
My parents are not geeks, they regular people at their +-60, that NOT advanced office users.
Happily creating and editing photo and video, reading mails, printing, watching movies, surfing web, using skype to communicate, Some time CAD (like UGX) etc.
The move made me happy that they have computer. In M$ times, at least once a week i had that phone call with "Why, How, What"
Now I don't and they doing more fun staff that they learned. Changing themes, stretching icons, changing language of interface (they know 3-4 languages).

So, i can conclude that there is no reason for M$ at home other then 
1. gaming (games i like, Linux native (doom, quake, ET, ETQW) or can run with Cedega)
2. Some professional software like Cubase that does not run on Linux and don't have satisfying alternatives (BTW Photoshop 6 and CS2 does run in Linux)
3. Some hardware that does not have proper support for desired features in Linux (Creative X-Fi, Nvidia skipping features like Hybrid SLI) 
Do you need them ?
If you do, pay for M$
If you don't or you have computers that wont need above features, try Linux.

Why you use it(M$) ?
Some one (and it's not M$ only, but all hardware and software makers getting rich.
With M$ they have your money spent on upgrades. This is why big OEM will like to sell you computer with preinstalled M$

Interesting fact:
according to netapplications, Percent of computers surfing the web based on M$ dropped more then 2% last year on the other hand Linux almost doubled percentage from 0.5%(almost nothing) to 0.8%(bigger nothing)

We all know the millions of linux software substitutes are available when attempting to run your business. Especially large enterprises, graphics companies and so forth.

Regardless of the logic, businesses will deal with Vista issues, to have better application compatibility and user resources, than switch to something which is a variable large-enterprise nightmare. Not only will they need to train every user (or find new ones), but they'll have to replace their entire support staff if they're not familiar with unix and linux OS.

Regardless of what FUD is floating about, most issues with Vista are due to low resources and garbage that isn't filtered out during a basic business vista image process. The horror stories of everyday users and publications such as this, have quite a few people gun-shy of what may happen. 

In all honesty, when configured correctly in a business environment, Vista doesn't behave much different than Xp.... whether you want to believe so, or not.

Not to mention (as I have in the past), before Linux overtakes Windows, Microsoft will release their own flavor... considering their support/user base is there.

I believe I heard that 2008 was supposed to be the year for linux... But it seemed that 2007 was more of a year than this, right?

another pathetic article ... lol $300 ?!

and btw XP support goes till 2014 ... for sure at that time any business will have better machines ... because they´re pc´s are going be in really bad shape lol

Here is to hoping that the boses think we are worth at least 2,000 a seat. Otherwise i'm worried.

Predowngraded new OEM PC Hardware 540 USD (without monitor, add 200 USD for monitor)

Vista Business 0 (already comes with PC)

Windows XP Downgrade (0 already comes predowngraded)

Office 2007 Small Business Edition 245 USD (lacks Access but it's not much used)

TOTALS 785 USD

The only difference between Linux and Windows is Office cost but if business needs they won't switch. Also a lot of businesses have proprietary accounting, stock keeping, time control... apps that have barely been ported to Windows XP and from which it would be very expensive to switch.

I'm a big proponent of Linux but realistically it is not yet viable to switch for majority of businesses. It is viable for startups which don't require proprietary apps or can develop them inhouse or for large companies who have inhouse apps that they can migrate.

Nobody uses XP because it's super-smashing-great. They use it because the software they need runs on it. It doesn't matter (to some extent) how much money can be saved going Linux if the software they want to run doesn't work on it. Why not look into how much it would cost to retrain all those Microsoft IT types for SMBs?

Speaking as a happy Vista and OpenOffice user, I remain yours,

Ben Vost

If you're a business with more than 50 employees and working with a vendor like Dell or HP, you are not going to pay that much for a Windows Vista Business License.

The company I'm at has about 120 employees and we order Windows via the Microsoft eOpen Licensing program. A single copy of Windows Vista Business eOpen *with* Software Assurance (read: downgrade rights built into the license) runs about $89. Unless we order a huge number of computers, there's no additional discount.

Let me be VERY clear here: If you're a business buying a PC from a top tier vendor you're NEVER going to order a retail Windows license. ($300 sounds right for a retail boxed copy). You're going to buy either a OEM license which cheaper than eOpen, but License dies with the box *or* you're going to buy eOpen which is more expensive than OEM, but the License is not locked to any specific hardware.

I'm also talking about using eOpen Licensing with Software Assurance so not only do you get downgrade rights.. all the way down to 2000 at the moment.. but you get upgrade rights for two years. 

The price tag, for us anyway, is $89/license.

Food for thought...


Most users think the screen is the pc, teaching them linux would be a full time course for 2 weeks and even they still couldn't use Vi or grep or is it not all like that now?

Like everyone else said, costs, education, users getting stuck, programs not compatible, new printer not got linux driver or users don't know the write command to install it, etc etc etc.

I tried Linux, is it still a pain in the ass when trying to run program written for Windows? ;-)

Do you folks know what's wrong with the PCWorld article? Its blind generalisation and assumption. Its foolish. Managers around the world are laughing at this!

What am I talking about? The PCWorld author, Scott Spanbauer takes a very big generalisation in assuming ALL business operate EXACTLY the same way. 

Reality? They do NOT. Every business, no matter how big or small is different.

To assume Linux (and other open source solutions) can easily take care of all that, is well, dumb.

(1) Some businesses are highly reliant on Microsoft infrastructure. For open source to be acceptable in this area, there MUST be a direct 1-to-1 replacement for MS to Open Source conversion. People do NOT accept anything less. This is fact.

This is especially true in regards to those twits who insist on using Macros in MS Office.

OpenOffice has to do "double duty". While providing an alternative, it MUST also provide compatibility with 100% fidelity. (What you do in Word or Excel must be able to be replicated by Writer or Calc). Anything less is not accepted in business.

(2) Let's face it, businesses NEED support contracts. 

While it is true that one doesn't need to worry about Licensing costs as well as keeping an eye on the number of licenses in use matches what you bought when you go with open source...They still need someone to scream at. (ie: support contracts!)

Scott Spanbauer never bothered to conduct an assessment of how much it costs with Red Hat or Novell?! WTF? The 2 most well known providers of commercial support for Linux isn't mentioned! What about Mandriva? (They also have commercial support, consulting and training services).

(3) It takes time to change over.

I'm a home user. It took me a solid month to research, test, trial and convert over from Windows to Linux. This includes breaking old habits of Windows and learning new things. I'm now a full time Linux user. (It wasn't easy back in 2005!)

Businesses are luckier in this sense, as they can pay for consultants and instructors. The cost is a one off investment. BUT there is some downtime in the short term. Something NO business manager or boss wants to hear. (Simply because they're too worried about the short term).

(4) Businesses need to conduct trials before making full commitment to change over.

I've seen this happen here in Australia. Some clueless moron of a manager jumped into Linux without doing research, or a trial period.

Guess what? He wasted money and time on a disaster. (He also made good PR material for Microsoft of why open source doesn't work!).

Here's a fact. You DO NEED to conduct trials and tests to assess if Linux and open source solutions meet your needs. You must look at the costs, benefits, and other factors in both long and short term.

The PCWorld article doesn't even look at that.

Scott Spanbauer has written a "blind fire" article for promoting open source. Its foolish and downright ignorant. In an attempt to promote open source, he's offering a negative impact on it.

For open source to succeed on a worldwide business level, there needs to be:

(1) Applications that meets the needs of the users. 

ie: There is no direct AutoCAD, Solidworks, etc replacement on Linux. (CATIA dropped Linux support in their recent release!). 

So open source coders need to plan, and start proper open source projects to meet this need.

NO! Wine is NOT a long term solution! Native Linux applications ARE!

(2) Understand what open source actually means.

This goes both from a business and developer's perspective.

Both must understand each other's view. Not some blind belief based on what they "heard from a friend". Get the facts, and get them yourself. Ask, and ask politely.

Don't believe the BS that's being spewed out by Microsoft and their pathetic attempts to emulate open source. Get in the front line and observe forums, etc of some real open source projects. Hell, contact open source developers directly.

And if you're a developer of open source software, re-assess what open source means to you and why you use that particular license. If you want to turn it into a business, have you considered ways to do it? What is the expected level of service businesses usually get? 

Are you going to be like Xandros and say "to hell with the community!" and try to use open source with a closed business model? Or are you more like Red Hat and want to strike a balance?

(3) To open source folks: Who gives a crap what the critics say!

Open source folks should ignore critics and focus on what they do best. There's no need to defend anything when you can do things better and cheaper than someone else. Action is louder than words. (No marketing campaign can help you if your product is crap...Windows Vista has proven that).

Use those trolls to motivate yourselves to do better. (Its typically some 15yr old loser or some MSCE twit who's scared shit-less about losing their job over open source).

I say screw'em. Keep making better software in a consistent fashion. Put those morons out of a job! If they refuse to adapt to the changing situation, then they die. Their responsible for their own lives, NOT YOU.

Microsoft fears open source for two very good reasons:

(a) MS's business model is based on selling licenses of each copy of software.

Open source licenses for each copy is $0. MS cannot compete with that directly. Nor can they compete with multiple copies on multiple machines at $0. 

Hell, they've implemented harsher measures! Genuine Advantage anyone? :)

(b) MS fears the GPL.

The fact is, they do NOT want to offer you the same rights to everyone. They need "leverage" over others in order to make money. GPL kills that leverage.

As you can see, the situation is FAR MORE complicated than some moron from PCWorld makes it out to be.

Like any activity in life, you need to research and plan, do a trial, train up, and then...Do it. This will improve your odds of success. (It'll get EXACTLY what you want).

This is how I successfully transitioned from Windows to Linux with minimal problems. (Compare that to most out there who blindly jump into Linux and then post a whinge on their blog of how Linux doesn't work for them!)...Yeah, I'm talking about folks like you, Andrew Thomas!

Some companies have migrated to Linux. We don't need imaginary figures for Linux migration scenarios, since we can now get real figures from real migrations.

How about being a real journalist, getting off your arse and going and interviewing some of those.

The same for the commenters. "Nobody can support Linux?" Well the presentation I went to by Europcar on their migration explicitly said it wasn't a major issues. So who is your real-world source who had the opposite experience? What attribute about them made them have a differing experience and how can that attribute be managed?

Let's have less supposition and more reality folks.

Makes sense to me. With open office being able to do what Microsofts product does I really can't see a reason not to. As a home user the only reason I've stuck with the current Microsoft OS is to keep up with the latest version of DirectX. So for an office I can't think of anything stopping them from doing it.

We've been using Linux of the desktop for years, the mind boggles at how much we've save, but ignore all that whenever theirs a big virus scare we can just sit back and smugly wonder what all the fuss is about..

Sorry, but my experience shows that the saving in using linux are more.

Try using Internet Explorer, Microsoft Word, Microsoft compilers and so many other stuff from Microsoft and you will understand.

I am using linux and my afficiency is nearly 100%. That means that when I boot my pc, no failure happens. Applications work the way they should. The components of my pc are used much more efficient (memory, cpu, video card, etc,).

Try using microsoft products and you will see many times that "An random Error has occured, please reboot the machine so the error to be fixed". The hours an employee wasting for trying to fix those strange errors worth much more that 1k - 2k dollars.

And of course application development is by far the most advanced in linux environment. Why use Net, ASPX and so on, platforms when the alternatives require less and work much more efficient and stable?

People, seriously, have you ever worked with linux? First try, then think.

Well, to short-cut the avid supporters.

Even I can tell that calculation is dead-wrong.

OEM Releases sell for a lot less, especially in volume pricing ... upgrades count ....

ok?!

But then again, what's the price of freedom anyway ? Install Linux, if you're up to it!

Pay no mind to the negative comments towards the article, these are nothing nut Vista-Loving Microsofties who have no cue that they are being scammed.

The author has a very good point, and it would be great if more people realize this.

At least the Inquirer has proven 1 thing. It's readers are mostly old Windows admins.

Ever seen the movie Brazil? That is Linux. I've been using it for years (for various reasons) and it NEVER matures. Each new generation ushers in a whole host of new, half-baked software, hardware and driver issues galore, poor documentation and unlimited "gotchas" requiring immense technical expertise and typically hours of time per incident to address.

The fraction of the total capital cost per employee that is represented by Windows/Vista is vanishingly small; compare that to the inevitable productivity hits that will arise trying to convert a company and all its employees to use Linux.

Linux has its selective uses, but the average business of most any size would be unlikely to benefit from switching.

Of all of the arguments against switching to Linux made by repliers to this article, the only legitimate one I have heard is the lack of key Windows-only software on Linux. And I don't mean Microsoft's software, because there really isn't anything that doesn't have a suitable alternative in Linux. I'm talking about programs such as Autocad and the like, which there is really no alternative for.

Now, the argument that really irks me is the "Support isn't there and IT professionals are unfamiliar" one. I'm 17 and have been using Linux for roughly 9 months (and of course some people are going to disregard me simply for that), but within that time I have gone as far as cross compiling Linux from scratch. I started with Ubuntu, and I was able to set up Apache + MySQL + PHP within 1 day of switching from Windows. Now I'm using a combination of Debian, Arch, and my LFS build at home. And all of this I was able to learn within the first 6 months of using linux, without any formal training or classes. I'm even A+ and Linux+ certified now, and plan on taking network+ soon. 

Of course IT staff shouldn't go straight from Windows to Linux in a production environment without any prior experience. But honestly, how hard is it to just install your choice of distro at home, experiment with that first, and then move on to implementing it in a business setting? From my personal, albeit limited, experience, Linux is far simpler than Windows in every area, with a few exceptions (X.org is a complete mess).

Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm naive and have no idea what I am talking about and should just let MSCEs determine what is "easy", but if a 17 year-old with no formal training like myself can learn the ways of Linux to a reasonable extent, why can't an IT professional?

I work for a huge organisation that has already migrated to ubuntu instead of vista.

Our hardware was already good to go, and our IT guys knew linux backwards. 

Our office was already using open office extensively as well as firefox.

Our local apps are all written in java or web based - no dramas there.

We switched, everyone begrudgingly learn't thunderbird and a month later...er...um...it works. No one has batted an eyelid.

It really wasn't a big deal. Linux, Hardware, gnome, openoffice, all that stuff wasn't a problem AT ALL. 

Thunderbird was at first. That caused the most problems but after a week everything was back on track.

So um yeah...Migration wasn't that big a deal. BUT...and it's a big BUT. Our IT guys are linux masters and boy, did they do their homework. 

They had everything sorted and tested before we dived in AND our custom apps are java. 

It's not all rosy. For starters, your maths are total garbage. The migration WILL cost time and money and the first few days of the change will not be very productive. so yeah...it costs initially. 5 years down the track though....we're gonna be WAY better off. No licensing fees, and way, WAY less maintenance. turn off compiz and linux is as solid as a rock. Mindblowingly so.

Overall it's been really, really positive. It isn't for every business but it worked brilliantly for ours.

@androticus

Just BS, stop watch movies...
Or go comment on iG site.

I have enjoyed that various comments from people who obviously have NO Enterprise level experience. I am an IT administrator that operate in Windows/Linux environment, and I can tell you without a doubt that in most cases switching CAN be done relatively painlessly and with substantial savings to the Business Unit. Generally if you have IT staff who are well trained and professional in either environments, switching between Windows and Linux was relatively painless. In many cases the only difference between the two environments is the interface, functionality is generally the same. And this is the key point. IT professionals who immerse themselves into both environments come out better able to handle both environments. The only real stumbling blocks are mid to high level managers who are comfortable with what they know and have been told. So anyone claiming it cannot be done, are gravely mistaken. I am a case in point.

Because of corporate experience with UNIX and Linux, and the awareness of the difference in capabilities and performance, many corporations are becoming
much less tolerant of Microsoft. Many companies have not renewed their service agreements, most have Linux migration strategies that can be implemented within 30 to 90 days if necessary. Most have hired system administrators and PC administrators with UNIX and/or Linux administration experience, and most MCSEs are now starting to get Linux certifications to remain marketable.

My source? Look around.