Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 4th Jun 2010 22:20 UTC, submitted by Preston Gralla
In the News So, what to do with this. If we don't run it, we're pro-Linux. If we do run it, we're pro-Microsoft. And I'm sure that whatever we do, we're anti-Apple somehow. In any case, here we go: the latest market share figures from IDC about servers show that Windows is by far the most popular server operating system in terms of unit sales, increasing its market share even further. Linux, on the other hand, saw its market share in the server market sink a little.
Thread beginning with comment 428341
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Numbers in perspective
by boblowski on Sat 5th Jun 2010 11:48 UTC in reply to "Quit being so pro Microsoft!"
boblowski
Member since:
2007-07-23

As the guy says, it's already quite a feat to 'sell' Linux anyway.

But to put the numbers somewhat in perspective: I have some difficulty finding the original data, but according to the linked article in what was Microsoft's best quarter 1,379,487 units have been sold. Let's (for argument's sake) say that on average a Windows installation runs 5 years before being replaced or upgraded. 5 years x 4 quarters x 1,379,487 units make a maximum of approximately 27,5 million running currently Windows servers. Since this also includes (a lot of) volume licenses, I take it the actual number must be lower.

According to that nice overview a while ago ( http://gizmodo.com/5517041/googles-insane-number-of-servers-visuali... ) Google owns with ~1 million servers about 2% of all the worlds commercially operated servers. That is about 50 million servers in operation. Many home and SMB owned servers won't be included in this number, so the actual number is probably higher.

If I compare both numbers, I would suspect that at maximum 50-55% of all currently operated servers are running Windows.

These numbers also suggest that only about 2% of all Linux servers are running some commercial or commercially supported Linux. That seems to be a realistic number in my experience.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Numbers in perspective
by Moochman on Sun 6th Jun 2010 12:58 in reply to "RE: Numbers in perspective"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

According to that nice overview a while ago ( http://gizmodo.com/5517041/googles-insane-number-of-servers-visuali... ) Google owns with ~1 million servers about 2% of all the worlds commercially operated servers. That is about 50 million servers in operation. Many home and SMB owned servers won't be included in this number, so the actual number is probably higher.

If I compare both numbers, I would suspect that at maximum 50-55% of all currently operated servers are running Windows.


I don't think home servers count as they are not remotely within the same market segment--plus in that case you would need to include Microsoft Windows Home Server in the stats as well.

I think these generalized figures from IDC are kind of pointless though anyway because they lump all "servers" together. For instance, Microsoft Exchange, which runs on Windows Server, has 65% percent of the groupware market (source:)

http://www.ferris.com/2008/01/31/email-products-market-shares-versi...

and I'd guess the figures are similar for Windows when it comes to file servers. Both of which make sense for the kind of Windows-centric desktop environment you find at the majority of businesses. Leave these two use cases out though and you will get a very different picture of things. When it comes to web servers, for instance, Linux and Windows are neck and neck at about 41% each (see the Netcraft figures in the following link):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems#Serve...

Also in that link note that Unix servers have around 30% of the market by revenue even though they have only 4.4% of the market by units. This again makes sense IMHO because I'm guessing that a single "unit" of one of these Unix servers performs the same amount of work as a bunch of x86 servers combined, or performs a very specialized, high-reliability function, thus justifying the high cost.

All of this just goes to show that the word "server" can mean any number of things, and statistics that lump them all together really aren't all that useful.

Edited 2010-06-06 13:05 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2