Well yes and no
Windows will never be cheaper in the long term, unless of course they change their cost and business model radically.
However we are presenting to bean counters, the good ones can actually see a whole year in advance sometimes. Five years , not happening, too many tabs on the worksheet, besides they'll have moved on by then.
The points you raise are the intangibles.
Wha't exactly is the cost of retraining your professionals and users or buying in new talent.
What's the cost of keeping them upto date and certified.
What's the cost or porting inhouse software, office automation.
What's the cost of fixing it when those gits at MS break it with a new version, or add more spangly features which you just gotta have.
What's the cost of disruption while you implement
What's the cost of minimising said disruption ?
Think of some numbers and prove your contention.
One thing I've often noticed is many present this as an all or nothing choice, yet there are many businesses with mixed environments.
In fact it's in the interest of all businesses to have mixed environments, it gives them options.
Another option for businesses, is to employ people with skills in more than one OS, we aren't that rare and it's not that difficult to do if you remember that it is a different OS.
