To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
If they're running Win2K in a closed environment without really upgrading it or changing it, how are they spending any money? Once you've bought an MS OS, you don't have to keep paying. Switching has a cost... staying doesn't. Maybe they would have saved back then, but linux has progressed a lot in the past 3 or 4 years, so the choice wasn't clear in linux's favor when the machines were commissioned.
//If they're running Win2K in a closed environment without really upgrading it or changing it, how are they spending any money?//
You can't run Win2K in an expanding environment.
If you need to add machines to your network, they can't be Win2K machines, and you are forced to pay an upgrade cost. What is worse, it will be an upgrade cost for all of your machines, because you probably can't have just a few at the new standard and the rest left at the old.
If you are going to have to switch anyway to expand your network, then you are far, far better off switching to a complete Linux solution than going with XP, and immeasurably better off with a Linux solution than going with Vista.




Member since:
2005-07-08
If that's really true (but I doubt it) they could save a HUGE amount of money by switching those over to Linux.