Home > Windows > Low Prices, Windows Capture Server MarketLow Prices, Windows Capture Server Market Thom Holwerda 2005-11-23 Windows 18 CommentsMicrosoft Windows captured the lead for the first time in server operating systems during the third quarter, boosted by continued demand for inexpensive servers selling for less than $25000 (EUR 21190), according to a new report.About The Author Thom HolwerdaFollow me on Twitter @thomholwerda 18 Comments 2005-11-23 5:38 pm I thought Linux was going after that segment of the market! If windows is so expensive, how is it that they captured such a big chunk of the market share?Did they steal it somehow? Should we take them to court and try to sue them out of business? Should we just spread FUD about Microsoft in order to diminish their reputation?Penguins everywhere unite! 2005-11-23 7:10 pm Duffman>Should we just spread FUD about Microsoft in order to diminish their reputation?No need to do that. Linux zealots do it since years … 2005-11-23 8:34 pm rhyderI suppose that “less than $25,000” servers are still going to be quite expensive. In a situation such as that, the advantage of Linux’s low price becomes diminished. 2005-11-23 6:52 pm chemical_scumFacts from article rather than spin and FUD:Sales of servers running Windows jumped nearly 18 percent…. Linux server sales rose a substantial 34 percent in the quarterLinux is still the fastest growing server operating system and growing significantly faster than Windows 2005-11-23 7:10 pm Linux is still the fastest growing server operating system and growing significantly faster than WindowsWell yes but that’s meaningless, moving from 2 to 3 points is a 50% increase, moving from 20 to 25 points is only 25%, but in one case you increase your market share by one point, in the other by 5 points… 2005-11-24 4:45 am chemical_scumWell yes but that’s meaningless, moving from 2 to 3 points is a 50% increase, moving from 20 to 25 points is only 25%, but in one case you increase your market share by one point, in the other by 5 points…Your arguement is flawed. The perecent increases in IDC reports normally refer to the % increase in revenue for computer sales in for this quarter over the same guarter for last year, not the percent increase in installed base.What the MS shills are claiming is that MS Windows based systems have the lead in revenue for systems costing less than 25,000 USD for the first time beating Unix in this area. This is a first for MS, however this is not true if you take the sales of all server systems, nor if you compare Windows to all unixlike operating systems (Unix + Linux) in the sub 25,000 USD market.One must admit that the last two quarters of sever sales have been something of a success for MS, having seen the % revenue increase MS server sales become greater than the % increase in the market while previously it had been less thus showing a small increase in market share rather than the decline that had previously been observed.What I find dubious in these IDC reports is nowhere have I seen how they account for servers sold without an operating system. For example Dell will sell you server systems without an operating system. What percentage of sales this is no one seems to know. Virtually all of these boxes will have Linux, BSD or Solaris installed on them, thus rendering the percent market share figures for Windows rather dubious. 2005-11-24 1:59 am skingers6894OK So Windows has just taken the LEAD and Linux is growing at a greater rate than Windows. Maybe both Windows and Linux are feasting on the Carcass of commercial Unix. 2005-11-23 6:56 pm So the sales is what determines the popularity. Are they calculating sales totals or total product sales? Meaning Windows cost more than linux so it will come out higher. 2005-11-23 7:11 pm segedunumI thought Linux was going after that segment of the market! If windows is so expensive, how is it that they captured such a big chunk of the market share?This is a little trick Microsoft pulls with regard to server sales – they calculate the server market by revenue. Windows almost always has a greater share from that point of view, but by volume, Windows is really nowhere near where Linux and Unix is. 2005-11-23 7:13 pm OK, Windows has just captured server market.Remember how many people disputed Eugenia’s choice of Windows 2003 Server as “Server OS of the year”?Linux fanboys, stop crying: Linux is not going to die because of this, there’s enough room for both. 2005-11-23 7:23 pm segedunumRemember how many people disputed Eugenia’s choice of Windows 2003 Server as “Server OS of the year”?And of course Eugenia really knows what is required of a server in day to day life…..Linux fanboys, stop crying: Linux is not going to die because of this, there’s enough room for both.Ha, ha, ha – Linux is certainly not going to die. Well thanks for that wonderfully informative bit of information. I was a bit worried there!The way that Microsoft portrays their share of the market means that Windows 2003 is a bit less popular than they say it is. Don’t cry over that Windows fanboy. 2005-11-23 8:17 pm The way that Microsoft portraysMicrosoft portrays?Microsoft didn’t release this info nor has paid for it.Deny it all day and night long and then some more, but the truth is simple: this quarter Windows servers have outsold competition, for the first time ever.Go cry about it, go deny it. 2005-11-24 9:54 am segedunumMicrosoft portrays?Microsoft didn’t release this info nor has paid for it.How the hell would you know? Any survey like this will have Microsoft’s guiding hand over it, and it is simply naive to think otherwise. They can’t afford it.Deny it all day and night long and then some more, but the truth is simple: this quarter Windows servers have outsold competition, for the first time ever.Outsold? Not based on those figures they haven’t. Outsold implies people have bought more, but all they confirm is that people spend more on Windows servers i.e. Windows is more expensive!Go cry about it, go deny it.Whinge and stamp your feet all you want that this has been sussed out. 2005-11-24 4:33 pm How the hell would you know? Any survey like this will have Microsoft’s guiding hand over it, and it is simply naive to think otherwise. They can’t afford it.How the hell would you know that any survey like this has MS’s guiding hand over it? You just know, I guess.🙂IDC didn’t lie before when Windows Servers weren’t #1, but now they lie? Yeah, MS paid them.. right. 2005-11-23 7:57 pm shotsmanI wonder how many of these Windoes Server 20003 sales were direct replacements for Windows NT/2000 boxes. IMHO, probably quite a few. One place I worked at recently just replaced a whole bunch of NT4 boxes with Server 2003. They junked the old HW and got new boxes. So, there are direct replecements.What would be more intersting would be the numbers of totally new systems.And it has to be said, we don’t really know how many Linux Servers there really are do we. 2005-11-23 8:40 pm klotyHello,one interesting point of the survey is that the amount of sold UNIX boxes is rapidly declining, but the revenue remains quite the same. That means that revenue/box is rising. That can only mean that UNIX boxes are high-end multiprocessor machines with great IO, machines where Linux and Windows are not that common. I think this will remain for a while, because although the x86 processors become more powerfull, they still are hardly used in massive multiprocessing environments (of course there are exceptions like the 32-way XEON server from IBM). Intel and AMD do not have lot of experience to design processors which fit into multiprocessor environments and they don’t have to (for the moment, at least). There are clusters, but several usage models do not fit for a cluster environment but demand a multiprocessor system with single memory image.So my prediction is, that UNIX-servers will go the way of the IBM mainframes or iSeries, they are expensive, they are seldom, but they won’t disappear.Regards,Anton 2005-11-23 8:45 pm frankOne interesting thing about that article. Of the top 4 server companies – IBM, HP, Dell, Sun. Dell is the only one who doesn’t have a Unix OS nor manufacture their own CPU… (though IBM and HP probably uses Intel and AMD cpus too.) It’s neither hither nor dither – just thought that was kind of interesting.Considering that Dell beat out Sun, there might be something to Intel vs. AMD cpus too.As for Linux, I don’t think that’s really in the equation. If I’m a company who is willing to pay $25K for a server, would I skimp and install Debian or Suse? AIX, HP-UX, Solaris – they’re all costly. 2005-11-23 11:43 pm According to this arcticle, ou of 12.5 billion quaterlysales of inexpected servers, 4.6 billions were Windowssales, and 3.9 billion were UNIX sales. Where did theremaining 4.0 billion go to ? Did they go to Linuxmarket ?If they did, then, taking into account 18% and 34%quaterly growth rates of the respectively Windows and Linux server markets, and assuming that these growthrates will stay unchanged for two more queaters, onecan calculate that Linux will catch up with Windowsin the next quater, and will overtake it by the spring2006.