- Related Stories
-
Keeping pace with open source
June 29, 2007 -
Apple invites Windows users on Safari
June 11, 2007 -
Microsoft looks beyond Windows Server 2008
May 16, 2007 -
Vista for the masses
April 4, 2007 - Related Blogs
-
Next iMac to use new keyboard?
July 9, 2007
While the U.K. company has about 700 PC users and currently runs Windows XP Pro and Office XP Pro, Chief Information Officer Richard Snooks has criticized Microsoft's aggressive licensing policies.
"We are feeling the pinch of the aggressive revenue targets of Microsoft," Snooks said. "We are asking ourselves, 'Are they (Microsoft) fit for our business?'"
In particular, Snooks isn't convinced by the arguments for upgrading to Microsoft's latest Windows operating system, Vista, and is actively looking at alternatives, including a small trial of a Suse Linux desktop inside the IT department.
"I feel we are being railroaded, and the market generally forced (us) into a corner or even a cul-de-sac. In a free market, we have made Microsoft dominant, and now we have the collective responsibility to reverse this situation to re-establish balance and competition. If I am being driven down the Vista route, then an Apple Mac is smarter money and cheaper."
Snooks said the browser-based ATMs at Capital & Regional's shopping outlets could potentially run on Suse Linux with a Firefox browser, while Apple Macs may be a better alternative to Windows PCs.
A Microsoft representative said the company offers a range of licensing agreements for different business needs and cited security and energy efficiency as benefits of moving to Vista.
"Vista is the most secure, reliable and flexible OS available from Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."
Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
U.K. company,
Linux desktop,
CIO,
SuSE Linux,
SuSE
has more built-in features than you will find on your bargain
basement or comparably priced PC.
Apple, Linux, are both viable if they do the job. While MS may technically cost less today, if they do keep on the path, it won't be later.
It is far less secure then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.
It is far less reliable then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.
It is far less flexible then OSX, Linux, BSD, etc.
But this is a flow out lie:
"and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and maintain,"
Vista is a great idea, that just is not ready for prime time. That's ignoring other issues like the Draconian Lisencing, The Driver Fiasco etc.
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/visualbasic/dotnet/archives/darwin-would-use-windows-16872
Microsoft, and is easy and cost-effective to deploy and
maintain," she said. "The reduced complexity facilitates
maintenance and support, which allows IT management time to
be deployed more effectively elsewhere, and the in-depth
security ensures protection of sensitive data at all times."
I really don't see any complexity being reduced. The licensing
scheme is becoming a mess for huge corporations and the
constant system updates are also a mess to implement. There
always seems to be a constant patching of bugs and security
threats with MS OSes.
Lets also mention how RAM hungy Vista really is - minimum
1gig to function properly!
In depth security of which version? The Vista licensing scheme is
a total mess and honestly only the most expensive version adds
a bit of increased security. On the other hand a Linux or FreeBSD
system has that security already built-in. I see Linux as being
problematic in this implementation is that it has limited
hardware drivers compared to Windows. On the other hand
Apple has shown that this is not a problem. The other problem
is using MS products on the server end - that hasn't always
shown to be OS independent.
As an IT administrator I am actually just now forcing upgrade to
Windows XP due to the fact that the new .net internet apps our
firm is forced to use are not Windows 2k compatible. Just the OS
is costing us $150 per user with no apparent benefit for the
firm. Then on top of that we have to get new Office licenses at
$250 a pop and it quickly becomes a financial nightmare. At the
same time there is Openoffice.org that is quite a viable solution.
$150 per license? You aren't doing something right, you can get OEM copies for less than that...we paid $98 for 1200 licenses in 2003.
You don't need new Office licenses, and definitely not at $250 a pop...Where are you buying from? Go somewhere else...Office 95 and above run perfectly on XP. Though if you are using either 95 or 97, you are upgrading because you should have 5 years ago, not because you need to.
My Ubuntu and Red Hat are constantly wanting to update, though of a much lesser severity than the updates for my XP boxes.
Lastly no business should be using Vista Ultimate, they should be using Business addition which only adds Bit-Locker which business should be using a much better system anyway.
The only thing is the ease of changing drivers post installation
which is usually a logistics nightmare on Linux/Unix clones.
How energy efficient is it to be forced to buy a bigger, newer computer with a larger power supply just to run Vista?
/P
There is a lot of development on the Linux side to make linux better suited for standby mode.
Micro$oft is scared of GNU/Linux (BSD as well), no one else should be.
It's just the nature of the beast to improve technology.
If you offer someone a replacement machine that is three years old or machine that has twice the memory, faster CPU, larger HDD, better graphics, etc, which do you think they will want?
Microsoft has to have several, the cheapeest of which is even more
than the single version of OS X! As always, it's a greed thing...
Where do they come up with this stuff?
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Actually, it doesn't. What do you mean?
For me the article does this very effectively. I question why all such articles require such exacting numbers as you request when are are talking of one person's private opinion for his company. In reality their are far too many variables (some could be private) to include in a small article.
The article is about a man that is making a personal decision that he feels best suits his company.
The article is very interesting and quite newsworthy.
Thanks CNET
Windows for Macs in a Business environment. And when you don;t
like this CEO's opinion, you diss it. Your opinion is better?
This isn't news? Then why didi you read it? Curious? Gotcha.
The main reason I run Microsoft's OS is because I run so many different apps and have a large variety of needs that Windows does better than the rest.
Other then the "need" to defrag, load your PC with AV and AS software and spend a good chunk of your time running those programs, what "need" does OSX or Linux not fulfill?
You can't mean applications, because you already mentioned that, so what need?
What he's saying is that a cheap PC with Business Vista does not look very cost effective compared with Linux and the Mac.
Windows is no longer the default. I've seen many POS devices that used to run older Windows versions being migrated to a Linux OS.
While Windows used to be cheap enough to be the default OS for just about everything, many companies have shifted to a policy of using Windows only where they really have to.
I have been in IT support for 12 years and this is flat out wrong. I think Macs and Windows are both great platforms and that is why I use both. They do different things well and better than the other, such as there is no video editing program that comes close to final cut on windows unless you shell out huge amounts for avid. Windows is a easy and basic operating system to support IT wise. Linux is a nightmare with drivers and etc. Mac they will find will have major incompatibilites in the real world. I think CIO's need to spend less time doing paper work and get out there under the desk in the real world to see what support really means, your overhead will increase becuase of the larger support department you build becuase of this switch to either mac or linux and they will be spending more money that they are with windows now, not to mention the price of a mac box compare to a core 2 duo windows box.
Depending on the specific needs of the end users a OS other than a Microsoft OS may be much better for said company. I know of a few company using Linux and have never been more satisfied. Why? Because that is all they needed.
This CIO is downright RIGHT and observant. This CIO is doing his job for his companies specific needs and problems. It is ITs job to make it work. And please do not complain about the work. That is your companies choice of how much IT works on ap project. People are free to look for a new job if they disagree with their current emploment decisions.
IMHO IT should communicate the options, costs, benefits and problems with each OS being considered then be good soldiers and do what the company orders.
Linux isn't ready for the average home user for some of the reasons you mention, but it is definitely ready for many business users. I've actually found it easier to install RedHat or Novell/SuSe than Windows on new equipment. Some users don't even know they aren't running MS Windows.
But if you really want a drop in replacement for Windows buy a Mac. We run both and they consistently need less than 10% of the support hours of the average Windows desktop.
A few years ago, we only used Macs in our graphics arts department. Now our managers and executives are requesting them. The cost of the hardware is the same or less than a comparable Dell and my job is getting easier and easier.
What more could you ask for?
They delayed their OS to produce a cell phone. Do I want my company servers to have to wait for a security patch because the company is playing with a phone instead?
That hasn't happened yet, but it is something to keep in mind. They turned their back on their computer customers once already for a cell phone. Will they do it again?
Windows 2000 was way more secure and reliable. Vista's Windows Explorer crashes at least twice per day on me, and I'm running a clean OEM machine. Vista is right up there with Me for being the -least- flexible. It is expensive and not worth deploying, and very difficult to maintain ... Windows 2000 was much better if we compare MicroSoft OS products. The -only- reason his statement has any validity is Windows 2000 isn't much available anymore.
I find it interesting that this "cnet article" didn't provide a link to the original story and that it claims to be "special to cnet." Something is very off-key here. It does correctly give the name of the author but unless silicon.com is owned by the same company as cnet.com, somebody just violated copyright law. Even if the same writer posted both articles, only one of the companies actually owns the copyright to the text.
I would think a seasoned organization as CNET is above plagerism.
Have you been up ove 24 hours? Have you been watching Mel Gibson Consiracy Theroy movies?
I say put the remote down and get some rest.
"Andy McCue of Silicon.com reported from London."
So it was Andy McCue who submitted the story to both sites.
I TOLD YOU IT WAS NOT PLAGIARISM. GET A GRIP!
A little rest nad you will be fine! LOL
If Windows Vista is not a necessary upgrade solution but stability and improved network security is, then it is wise to install Suse or Redhat Linux as the host OS and add VMWare or Parallels for Windows to keep your existing copy of Windows XP or 2000 running virtually as a client OS on the desktop.
This solution will add stability and security to your network and allow the flexibility most companies need while getting off the Microsoft Windows upgrade gravy train...
Thought you might like to know ;)
/P
I mean, come on, 700 users is insignifant these days from an IT perspective. Put up or shut up.
don't run the Mac OS, right? But a Mac can do it all, just as easily,
AND run the Mac OS?
So... what was your point?
An OS that is unsecure by default and no easy access to information is easy to use?
Windows is by far the most difficult OS to get running correctly. Other OS's run great and securely out of the box.
...get the idea? ;)
/P
Surely you realize, Windows is not being used because of "ease of use" or "popularity", it is ONLY because it is linked to IBM's brand name of the early 80's.
Microsoft simple rode that "brand name" to become the ugly standard much of the planet is locked into today.
In a "perfect world", MOST people would be running Macs, with about 10% running Linux, 1% windows.
Macs are BY FAR the MOST POPULAR machines, it's just that the "ugly IBM standards" for the 45 and older crowd still thinks IBM means quality, when it means exactly the opposite.
Apple will be larger than IBM within months, larger than Microsoft within 2 years, all because Apple truly CARES about a customer's ease of use, whereas Microsoft just collects money from the "ignorant" and runs.
-
I mean look at Mac OS X? Have you ever been using a Mac
before?
Haven't you felt the beauty, the comfort and the LOGIC that this
operating system was built of?
It's an operating system that DOES make sense...
Microsoft Windows is HORRIBLE and will ALWAYS BE if they don't
change the WHOLE CORE SYSTEM FROM SCRATCH!
Always giving you errors, cryptic messages, slow performances
as your computer gets stuffed with spyware and bull***t
software and NOT TO MENTION .. VIRUSES.
Microsoft is a SAD PAGE in the history of computers... and will
always be. The only thing I liked with them is MSN Messenger.
Microsoft say THEY make the huge innovations... while THEY are
the BIGGEST THIEVES of innovators such as those coming from
both Apple AND other cool Linux/UNIX operating systems.
Apple ALWAYS stood for ease of use and always will... always..!
Go to any store and try and buy a computer without Windows preloaded on it. Anyone knows you should be able to buy what you want, not what somebody else wants to sell you. Microsoft licensing terms and conditions have reached the point that I, for one, can no longer agree to them. I've been one of the majority of which you speak and I'm not alone in making an alternative move. More than a few business's are doing the same and even though this might not meet with your approval, oh mighty one, I'm afraid I'll just have to disappoint you.
Meanwhile, take note, I made no comment on your intellectual abilities, questionable as they might be.
- We started migrating to Mac's 3 months ago and haven't looked back
-
by jmvapa
July 11, 2007 8:40 AM PDT
- Since practically all of our existing software doesn't work in Vista, switching to Macs wasn't as scary as it had been before. We started with a single Macbook and have been migrating every laptop and desktop ever since. For the occasional legacy needs, we easily migrated our old Windows systems into virtual systems in our new Macs using VM Fusion. Even without existing Windows OS's, we could easily use ReactOS or Crossover. My farewell letter to Windows is here: http://darkbrownhole.blogspot.com/2007/07/breaking-up-is-hard-to-do.html
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (182 Comments)