Star Opinion: TCO for Everyone who isn't a Multinational Corporation
Linked by Ryan (aka Aurex) on Thu 10th Jun 2004 19:55 UTC
In the News Ever since Microsoft started publicly outing Linux with their "Get the Facts" campaign, I have seen numerous articles and studies about the TCO (total cost of ownership) of both products in a head to head manner. However, I have yet to see one article discuss the TCO for home users and small businesses. I have thought long and crunched many numbers to devise a conclusion to this years old debate and I think the results are obvious... Windows is way more expensive than Linux.
E-mail Print r 0   · Read More · 126 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/5nk
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
I stopped reading
by (*)(*) on Thu 10th Jun 2004 21:06 UTC

I stopped reading after the fourth paragraph. This guy has his numbers skewed to increase the prices to make Linux look like the better alternative.

$500 for a new PC w/ Win XP. Thats reasonable. Then the real FUD begins. You say $45 for Norton Anti-virus. New PC's come with a year subscription to antivirus. Next is Office XP Standard for home. More FUD I need to disprove. New PC's come with MS Works or Office basic. They can do reports in that. If the home user needs MS Office XP for work, then work will provide a copy of Office. Ok, so thats $445 off your price. Firewall, there are free ones, and Win XP has one built in. Or since most people are having home networks now, buy a cheap router. It adds an expense to Windows or Linux but you don't need the firewall as its built into the router. It looks to me like you can have a comparable system to Linux for the same price.

Now you ignore the important things, like when someone wants to play a game. We both know Linux is lacking in that department compared to Windows. I won't limit it to just games, but there are other miscellaneous files the rest of the Windows world is using that someone in Linux can't use.