Greg Thomas wrote:
>
> > 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
Opps! Cindy Crawford ??? You know, the super model... Cindy
Whatshername...
--
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
