> Great article.
> IDG.NET also published a article by Frank Hayes that parroted the
> Microsoft party line about NT being as cheap as Linux to install.
> I did a cost summary of the upgrade to Win95 and NT on the workstations
> and servers where I work, not counting replacing 3rd party software that
> the "upgrades" to the M$ OS requires because it broke them.
> When the upgrade from WFW 3.11 was completed we had replaced all of our
> 386 and 486 machines with 586 P75's and higher. It took three years.
> We didn't include CDROMs or SOUND cards and the boxes averaged $1,500.
> Now, M$ is asking us to begin cycle of "upgrading" to machines that have
> 128MB of RAM and 10GB of HD and a fast video. Assuming the same avg
> cost of $1,500 the NT 2000 "solution" will cost about $510,000 including
> hardware and license costs.
> Because Linux can use our P266 machines with 32 and 64MB of RAM just
> fine, and the 4.3 Bigfoots are also more than enough, ONE SuSE will do
> the whole thing for $50.
> According to Frank, $510,000 is about the same as $50. And my 95 yr old
> mother-in-law is as beautiful as Cindy Lawford.
> Even if we give each workstation a complete distro so they can have the
> manual, which is well worth the cost, the total cost is only $10,000
> which is still WAY BELOW the NT "solution".
yeah, it cracks me up when ms proponents say it's cheaper to run NT or 98
than Linux. BTW, who's Cindy Lawford?
greg
--
To get out of this list, please send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
this text in its body: unsubscribe suse-linux-e
Check out the SuSE-FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ and the
archive at http://www.suse.com/Mailinglists/suse-linux-e/index.html
