Linked by Ryan (aka Aurex) on Thu 10th Jun 2004 19:55 UTC
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.
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
"Well, when you have new hardware with a month old distro you may not even get into KDE or Gnome because you have no clue of how you should and can configure your video card."
Tried the same with Windows XP recently?
You might have noticed that since SP1 there has been a lot of hardware being marketed, which XP simply doesn't have a driver for "out of the box". No matter what the idiots above claim, driver disks really are still a fact of life. (be it disks are downloads, or whatever. Where did you get your current video driver from? Would you want to have Aunt Tilly go through the install?) Oh, forgrot. These are the l33t geeks that already have SP2 beta installed...like everyone else, of course.
The article touches some nice points, albeit it does focus a lot on expensive software. Why? Because that's what people are brainwashed to think: Free == Bad, mmkay? Trust us. Go wander by your "normal" friends and family sometimes. Have a look on their PC, jot down what you find, and *then* come back and comment on this article.