Re: RHL 9 - concerns

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

Re: RHL 9 - concerns



On Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:37:25 -0800, you wrote:

>Gerald Henriksen wrote:
>> How much longer are they going to want linux though if:
>> 
>> a) Linux is more expensive.  Take a company looking at deploying
>> either Linux or Windows XP to the desktop, for a 4 year period.  While
>> these companies expect to upgrade the applications over that 4 year
>> period they would prefer to keep OS changes to a minimum (ideally just
>> security updates and maybe drivers for new hardware if needed).  They
>> 
>> Microsoft Windows XP: $300.
>
>You forgot a few things here:
>
>Microsoft Office XP:  $579
>McAfee Antivirus:   $120  (60 + (3*20))
>McAfee Personal Firewall:  $70  (40 + (3*10))
>and so forth...
>
>As you can see, just Office and Windows XP exceed your worst-case 
>senario for WS.

No I didn't.  You are assuming that those products are actually
required.  There are a great number of places where Office is not
needed.

Eliminating Office brings Windows to $490 vs $480/$720.

Certainly someone doing graphic work with Maya/Houdini doesn't need
Office, and a company that develops their own in house software for
each machine (Bank, call centre, etc.) usually doesn't need Office on
each machine.

There are a lot of people who find Wordpad more than adequate, or who
have moved to using OpenOffice/Staroffice on Windows.

Assuming every copy of Windows XP has Office XP is clearly wrong, and
once you correct that you see that WS is overpriced.


>> Red Hat Enterprise WS: $480 (300+(3*60) *
>>                        $720 (300+300+(2*60) **




-- 
Phoebe-list mailing list
Phoebe-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/phoebe-list

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel List]     [Red Hat Install]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]