General discussion

Locked

Why Microsoft ?

By jtwomey ·
In the constant world of IT my partner and I are coming to the very same conclusion when it comes to recommending OS's for our clients. Why Microsoft? Besides the constant security issues the stabilization of the platform gives me a queezy feeling in my stomach. So here and now I submit why not Novell or Linux for server platform standard. Because it is obvoiuse to me Microsoft is less concerned with quality and more concerned with getting something out the door. Please we would like to here your comments.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by djent In reply to Why Microsoft ?

Next the desktop.

Collapse -

TCO

by Jellimonsta In reply to

Dependant upon the size of the organization, M$ is a viable solution in terms of total cost of ownership. Windows 2000 server is actually a pretty good NOS, sure it pretty much 'took' the Novell directory structure. It is a lot more dependable than NT 4 and does not seem to have the memory leaks. Sure Linux is less expensive but how easy is it to get a Linux or Novell Admin in comparison to a M$ Admin? And if you think they will be in the same pay scale, I imagine you are mistaken. It also looks that M$ is taking over quite a chunk of Novells market in the mid-large enterprise. It looks like Novell is going the way of the dodo to me. Don't forget also that Linux does have its share of flaws and security problems. Sure they are not to the magnitude of M$ but they are there. So I guess my question is, why NOT M$??

Collapse -

Offer NetWare

by tbragsda In reply to Why Microsoft ?

You have to build around the clients needs, but for a all around great platform, NetWare is great. You will get many posts for Linux, that's good. I love to see anything other than the Microsoft strangle hold.

Truth is, Im not much of a loyalist to any NOS vendor. I put in what works. If the need can be met with a NetWare server, I do prefer it.

Collapse -

Resistance is futile....

by jereg In reply to Offer NetWare

I couldn't help it. I agree though, that you design to the clients needs, and use whatever software that works best, AND, has a future. You wouldn't want to recommend an old DOS product just because it works well. There will be no support down the road.
My company uses one software package for 80% of our computing needs. Their future upgrade is going to be on MS SQL. I HATED to move off of Novell, but it made no sense to run a Novell and a W2k network for 50 users. I recommended dropping Novell because our vendor was moving off. It was a good decision, but only for us. another company will have different needs.

Collapse -

Power of Branding

by Oldefar In reply to Why Microsoft ?

Microsoft is still enjoying the power it gained through branding. IBM had that power for years in the mainframe environment, McDonalds in the fast food environment, Cisco in the network environment. A key aspect is that nobody gets fired for recommending or selecting the dominant brand.

The downside to branding is when the brand company begins believing its own market material. When that happens, it often loses touch with quality and value.

To avoid being blinded or biased to the dominant brand, make your decisions based on a feature set. Include every technical aspect important to the decision, exclude all the "added value" features that offer no business gain. Put the data in a spreadsheet with the vendors only identified by asequence number. Make you choice, and then look up the number to see who you picked.

Collapse -

On a personal note.

by mrafrohead In reply to Why Microsoft ?

For me: not a business, just me.

I DO NOT, like M$, what they stand for or a lot of their software.

I do like Windoze 2000 though. It has worked okay for me. To a point.

Problem is this. To switch to another OS - all of my hardware is supported in Windoze. But some of it will not work within Linux. I WAS going to change all of my boxes over to Linux not too long ago until I realized the hardware issue.

But I'm a monkey stuck on the wheel. I already have all of the software that works in Windoze. My hardware, works in Windoze. Funny thing is half of the freakin utilties that I use are Linux utilities ported into Windoze. Which sucks, but that's just the way it is...

When I build my next box, I can say that I am designing it to work within a Linux environment. After Windoze 2000, I am 100% finished with M$.

Billy's just gonna have to figure out what to do about their stuff that doesn't work right. And then when they fix it, they add extras to violate your privacy. That's crap and not necessary.

Not to mention, Open Source just seems like the way to go. If you don't like how something works, you can fix it yourself if you are technically able to write the code.

I think, Why Not Linux???

Mrafrohead

Collapse -

Marketing

by Deadly Ernest In reply to Why Microsoft ?

Simply out, the answer is amrketing. The only thing they have ever done well.

Educational facilities and students can get ripper deals on Microsoft prices, this encourages them to use MS products. Then you have the bif players bundling MS operating systems etc. Many businesses get their computers with the MS operating system already on it, there staff already know how the basic MS applications work. Easier for them to buy MS software than to retrain staff.

I have been re-educating some local small businesses and they are moving to Linux and Star Office simply due to the savings in software purchases. They ar mostly family companies and the retraining cost is not a cash factor. But more are looking at the cost of software updates as they find MS is no longer willing to support the older software whilst the open soyurce people will support or give you the latest upgrade free or next to nothing.

Collapse -

Microsoft is, by far, the standard.

by admin In reply to Why Microsoft ?

Sure, I'll use something else in the back office when I can, but if MS makes sharing etc. impossible or difficult we can't afford not using our information until an open source program is patched. Does this suck? Well, yes. We looked at converting everything to Linux and BSD, but our users can hardly convert easily between word 6.0 and 7.0 and the local software trainers don't exactly have the majority of classes in Star Office. On top of that, we don't want to train users from scratch. We wantthem to bring skills with them, and what skills do they nearly all have? MS.

It's not a tech decision or a moral decision or any other higher noble thing that drives it. It's business. It's about money.

MS routinely makes interfacing difficult with new releases and patches. I've seen it over and over... consultant installs Linux which works great until the upgrade\patch and *poof* the business is crippled for a few days or limps along. Cheaper to get MS first, and if you keep it patched and cruise BugTraq occasionally you won't be in the news, but home thinking about whether you want to pick up some cash helping those unfortunate or just relax.

Collapse -

by djent In reply to Microsoft is, by far, the ...

Of course they are. MS has murdered, abducted or co-opted every viable competitor until Linux, but Linux isn't for sale. You cant buy something thats free and guarenteed to to be open.

Back to IT Employment Forum
9 total posts (Page 1 of 1)  

Related Discussions

Related Forums