General discussion

Locked

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

By itdebate ·
Gartner argues that significant cost increases from changes in licensing for Win2K will drive companies to less restrictive server operating systems such as Solaris and Linux. Do you think the cost of Windows 2000 licensing supports the idea that Microsoft uses monopolistic practices? Have Win2K licensing costs made you consider alternative operating systems? You can read the related Gartner article, which will be posted on 3:00 A.M. Wednesday, at http://www.techrepublic.com/article.jhtml?id=r00620000614ggp01.htm

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

24 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next
Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by shoffman In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

While Gartner makes some good points, one has to wonder if this isn't a short term situation (and short term thinking on Microsoft’s part). *** IF *** (and this is a BIG IF) the company is split up per the recent court decision, one has to wonder about the viability of a company whose only products are operating systems. If MS-1 produces Windows-X and MS-2 produces Exchange, there’s no incentive for MS-2 to require their customers to pay extra for the privilege of running on a Windows based platform.

Would Apple see this as an opportunity to come out with a Mac-like OS for the x86 processors? Didn’t Apple go down this road with the original Mac – making the system very proprietary and trying to lock in users and limit choices? (And look what that got Apple&hellip Either way, market forces may very well force this to change, and if so, Microsoft’s right to change terms at will could mean a DEcrease in costs… In the mean time, this is one more dis-incentive to m

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by itdebate In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...
Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by dJake In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

Microsoft once had me believing that they wanted to sell their products. You look at the costs for a Win2k setup and then you have to wonder what good ol' Bill is thinking. I must admit, I have Win2k on my laptop and it runs great, but would I be willing to recommend a site-wide installation of Win2k? Not in the slightest. Linux servers for mail, news, database and file sharing is the way to go. I'd stay away from Solaris just because of equiptment costs. There are two great SQL servers for Linux that are freeware and you can get Oracle and Informix if you feel so inclined. Samba may not perform as well as Win2k, but free is free. And I never did like exchange.

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by itdebate In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...
Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by davenptr In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

As I read the article, the only thing that came to my realization was monopoly. Until this article was released I was so sure that Microsoft was being corporately ambushed. But, in light of what I've just read I can see and understand why it came tocourt. Now, if I'm understanding this correctly, Microsoft is charging Win2K CAL fees even when an enterprise uses another vendor's NOS with Exchange; and this is being done because Exchange needs NT authentication. Yet, needing the same authentication, as long as an enterprise uses NT 4, there's no charge. Granted there's more in Win2K, but to have the audacity to charge fees even when its system isn't used is monopolistic from what I understand of the term.

What's even more intriguing isthe fact that if an enterprise uses a Microsoft function here or there, while continuing to use another vendor's system, those functions force the use of other functions that require additional charges, as I understand the article(anyone feel free to correct me if I mis

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by itdebate In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...
Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by user2002 In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

Since we, the IS and IT industry in this continent has sold our soul to MS and willy enslave ourselves to the MaSter, we shouldn't complain about cost at all. We should all be thankful that we are even given the good fortune of sending our master our hard earn cash so that we can continue to enjoy MS products. There should not be any complain about cost, or bugs, or lack of function, or any other unauthorized opinion. Just remember, having one single company in a industry is a good thing.

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by itdebate In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

Your answer was featured in our IT Debate TechMail. To receive your free subscription to the IT Debate TechMail, sign up at http://www.techrepublic.com/techmails.jhtml

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by Hameiri In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...

I think bigboss's answer is right on (sarcastically so).

I once felt I could rely on the "Loyal Opposition" in this country (USA) to avoid this kind of situation. But it seems Corporate America is not very democratic or freedom loving. They're willing to buy into a bully's system as long as everyone else is doing it. As usual American business is short sighted.

Of course Microsoft is doing this! It's what they planned all along.

I'm not going to yell monopoly, I'm going to yellviable alternatives!!! Let's use our freedom and consumer strength and make some good choices!!!

Collapse -

IT Debate: Buyer beware: Windows 2000 li

by itdebate In reply to IT Debate: Buyer beware: ...
Back to IT Employment Forum
24 total posts (Page 2 of 3)   Prev   01 | 02 | 03   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums