Criticism of Microsoft

From Free net encyclopedia

Criticism of Microsoft has followed the company's existence because of various aspects of its products and business practices. Lack of ease of use, stability, and security of the company's software are common targets for critics. Especially recently, trojan horses and other exploits have plagued numerous users due to faults in the security of Microsoft Windows and other programs. Quite a few people also accuse Microsoft of locking vendors into their products, and of not following and complying to existing standards in its own software and other products. Total cost of ownership comparisons of Linux to Windows are another contentious point of debate.

The company has been in numerous lawsuits by several governments and other companies for what some consider to be unlawful monopolistic practices. Recently, the European Union found Microsoft guilty in a highly-publicized anti-trust case. Microsoft has bought and acquired multiple companies and is sometimes accused of doing so to suppress some of the products that could hurt the bottom line of the company. Additionally, Microsoft's EULA for some of its programs is often criticized as being too restrictive as well as being against open source software.

Criticism of the company has resulted in it being deemed "the evil empire" by some. In a sci-fi allusion, Microsoft has also been called "the Borg" after the fictional race of aliens in the Star Trek universe. It reflects the perception that Microsoft often acquires technology from other companies rather than developing it in-house, as well as to Microsoft's ability to adapt to and overwhelm its opponents' strategies.

Contents

[edit]

Products

[edit]

Ease of use

Microsoft's focus on software usability was a large factor in its early successes. However, Microsoft is often criticized for making features more important than usability and for allowing the user interface of its products to become inconsistent and overly complicated, frustrating users by actions which should be simple to perform and requiring interactive "wizards" to function as an extra layer between the user and the interface. Additionally, some advanced users find that these features get in the way of control and have a difficult time making Microsoft products, in particular Microsoft Windows, do what they want.

However, in its efforts to make its products more accessible to users, the default settings in some Microsoft software are often criticized for helping to facilitate the spread of computer viruses and worms. For example, Windows operating systems released since 1995 hide file extensions by default, which can help malicious programmers trick unwitting e-mail recipients into opening dangerous file attachments which masquerade as harmless files with innocent-looking extensions.

[edit]

Stability

Image:Sparbanken.jpg

Versions of Windows based on MS-DOS, and later the Windows 95 kernel, were widely panned for their instability, displaying kernel panics (known in popular culture as the Blue screen of death) or abruptly terminating applications at what some consider arbitrary times. During this period, users of the operating system often accused Microsoft of being indifferent of the hardships this imposed on them. After the adoption of the Windows NT kernel in consumer versions of Windows, the operating system saw a vast improvement in stability, but complaints still arise. Computer users not familiar with the division of responsibilities among applications, the operating system, and third-party device drivers sometimes blame Microsoft for problems that are created by third-party software, although others argue that a well-designed operating interface should sandbox such software in a way that does not permit it to impact on the OS or GUI.

[edit]

Security

By 2002, several of Microsoft's networking- and Internet-related products had become the subject of intense criticism following several high-profile security lapses. Malicious programmers increasingly exploited weaknesses in Microsoft software by creating and distributing worms, viruses, and Trojan horses designed to spread across the Internet and waste computing resources or destroy data. These exploits primarily targeted Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express e-mail programs, Internet Information Server (IIS) Web server, and SQL Server database server software. Additionally, in February 2004 important parts of the source code from the Windows 2000 kernel were illegally leaked and widely distributed on filesharing networks. The leak contains source code for network protocols, parts of Internet Explorer, and certificate handling. Some people developed theoretical attacks to show how easily this leaked code could allow current versions of Windows to be compromised, but these flaws are not yet known to have been exploited maliciously.

Image:Benedelman-spyware-blogspot-2a.png Microsoft contends that its security record on critical vulnerabilities has substantially improved and compares favorably to that of its competitors, and that its dominant position in several Internet-related software categories naturally subjects the company's products to more attacks. The company also recently started the "Trustworthy Computing" initiative to help with its fight against security. However, critics argue that the attacks also target Microsoft products that do not hold commanding market shares, and suggest that this is because Microsoft products in general are fundamentally less secure than those of the company's competitors. This problem is compounded by the very ubiquity of Microsoft software. Once a working virus is released, it is almost certain to spread very widely because almost every computer it comes across is able to replicate and spread the virus. This effect has recently been dubbed the "Microsoft monoculture", by analogy to the problems associated with lack of biodiversity in an ecosystem. The National Science Foundation on November 25 2003 announced it had granted US$750,000 (Lemos, 2003) to computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of New Mexico to further understand the causes and the (presumably) negative effects of the homogenization of the world's computing platforms (National Science Foundation, 2003).

Some accuse Microsoft's licensing policy of aiding the spread of viruses. Due to the first service pack for Windows XP checked for known pirate keys and refused to patch Windows XP installations which had been pirated, a large number of Windows XP systems which were left more vulnerable to exploits. To combat this, Microsoft briefly considered letting Windows XP Service Pack 2 be installable on pirated copies of Windows XP, but later decided against this as it would encourage further piracy, although they didn't update the validation engine in Windows XP SP2. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

[edit]

Vendor lock-in

From its very inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary APIs in early versions, and partner programs. The solutions and plugins built by third-party programmers in turn led to more Microsoft sales. Although the resulting ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from network effects, critics decry what they consider to be a "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy by Microsoft of adding proprietary features to open, de facto standards, thereby using its market dominance to gain de facto ownership of standards "extended" in this way. For example, the large installed base of Microsoft Word nearly makes Word files the de-facto standard word-processor format (in spite of the some versions of Word not supporting documents by older versions of the application, which makes supporting the program essential for most business users. In addition, more potential employees have training in Microsoft Office than on competing products. Hence using Office can result in reduced training requirements, especially in the case of temporary employment. However, until recently, the file formats of Word and other programs were not an open standard, and even now the new XML-based format of the program is sometimes criticized as not being as open as OpenOffice's OpenDocument format.

Much in the same vein, around 1994 Microsoft began to become criticized for the "hidden APIs" in its operating systems, this is parts of their software libraries for developers that Microsoft never documents publicly but uses in its application software products. Some claim Microsoft uses this to their own competitive advantage. Microsoft software also represents a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems, in that the ubiquity of Microsoft software allows them to claim that they are following accepted best practices. This is a particularly attractive option for IT managers with limited technical knowledge. In an internal memo for senior management Microsoft's head of C++ development, Aaron Contorer, stated:

Template:"

[edit]

Business practices

[edit]

Copyrights

One of the earliest criticisms of Microsoft stemmed from its decision to market its software independently of the hardware it ran on by asserting copyright to the software and licensing it under terms similar to music. Software copyright was a legal novelty at the time and controversial. When Microsoft discovered that its first product, Altair BASIC, was subject to widespread illegal copying, Microsoft founder Bill Gates wrote an Open Letter to Hobbyists urging them not to use software without paying for it. Some computer hobbyists who received the letter believed it was a betrayal of the hacker ethic that was essential to the growth of the hobby. This disagreement over whether software should be proprietary continues into the present day under the banner of the free software movement, with Microsoft recently characterizing open-source software as being "potentially viral" <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> and the GNU General Public License itself as a "viral license" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

The Halloween documents, internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998 indicate that Microsoft perceives open source software, the freely available Linux operating system in particular, as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. In marked contrast to the company's public statements, which tend to downplay or ignore open source software, the Halloween documents acknowledged that parts of the Linux are superior to the versions of Microsoft Windows available at the time and outlined a strategy of "de-commoditiz[ing] protocols & applications"; in other words, basing networks and documents around proprietary standards so that they can only interoperate with other computers which use Microsoft products. Opponents of Microsoft have dubbed this strategy "embrace, extend, and extinguish".

Another concern of critics is that Microsoft is may be using the distribution of shared source software to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code, as some believe that these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This issue is addressed in published papers from several organizations including the American Bar Association and the Open Source Initiative<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>.

[edit]

Licensing agreements

A common complaint comes from those who want to purchase a computer without a copy of Windows preinstalled, instead desiring a copy of a free operating system such as Linux, Unix, or BSD, as all large computer vendors in the USA (with the exception of Apple Computer), and the majority in other countries, bundle Microsoft Windows with their personal computers. Some free software advocates speculate that this bundling occurs due to undisclosed agreements between Microsoft and the large computer vendors (Dell, HP, IBM) where the best discounts are given only when Windows is shipped on every single computer from that vendor. The 2002 settlement in the United States v. Microsoft case prohibits Microsoft from giving special prices to select vendors, which resulted in the price list becoming public and based on volume sold with discounts for features from the distributor. These features can include the provisioning of components as specified by Microsoft, such as FireWire, or the placement of Microsoft logos on the computer as a sticker. Market development funds such as these are a source of controversy with both Microsoft and Intel, as while they can be used to cover the cost of adding new features to the system they can also bias PC OEMs towards Microsoft/Intel products. In particular, the co-funding that Intel and Microsoft provide for PC advertising make it cheaper to advertise a Microsoft/Intel PC than a Linux/AMD system.

This problem can be avoided by purchasing a computer without Windows or by buying a white box machine. Some vendors, such as IBM and HP, have recently started to sell certain models bundled with Linux, although these are primarily high-end workstations or enterprise systems. Often, servers are sold without any operating system at all. High-street retail chains in various countries (such as Dick Smith Electronics) have also been known to offer machines bundled with Linux from time to time. In some cases the user can have a computer without windows preinstalled by refusing to agree to the Microsoft End User License Agreement, or EULA, that Microsoft requires its users to accept before allowing the use of several products. The EULA specifically mentions that if you do not agree to the license you can return the product for a full refund. Unfortunately, some vendors, such as Toshiba, have a shrinkwrap sales contract that specifically voids the clause of the EULA that allows one to return the software for a refund.

[edit]

Acquisitions

Microsoft has acquired several companies (such as competitors), and thereby their products, during its history <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. Such acquired assets include MS-DOS, Microsoft FrontPage, WebTV, Hotmail, Direct3D, Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Visio. In most cases, Microsoft rebrands the primary products of the companies it acquires, and some claiming that Microsoft is misrepresenting these products as its own creations. Sun Microsystems chief executive Scott McNealy has often claimed (inaccurately) that Microsoft never produced technology except by buying it, as in one instance when he stated "Name one thing they've ever invented on their own? Seriously, name one! If you think of any, send me an e-mail, and I'll research it to find out who they bought it from.... R&D and M&A are the same thing over there." <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

An often criticized acquisition took place in 1995 when Microsoft announced its intent to conduct a hostile takeover of Intuit, Inc., the maker of Quicken, which competed with its own product Microsoft Money. After a campaign by attorney Gary Reback and complaints to the Federal Trade Commission, Microsoft eventually dropped the takeover plans.Template:Fact

[edit]

Market power

There is little argument that in most mass-market desktop software application markets, Microsoft is a dominant player. However, this dominance has attracted widespread resentment, which is not necessarily restricted to the company's competitors. In a 2003 publicationTemplate:Fact, Dan Geer argued the prevalence of Microsoft products has resulted in a monoculture which is dangerously easy for viruses to exploit. However, numerous defences have been waged against this argument, including the idea that if machines can be patched from the threats it has much less of an effect.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>.

Critics of Microsoft have accused it of using its dominance in desktop operating system to leverage market share in other sectors of the computer market, such as web browsers (Internet Explorer), server operating systems (Windows NT), office software suites (Microsoft Office), and streaming media (Windows Media). They blame this on Microsoft's tactics of illegally tying software so that a new product can ride on the success of a monopoly product. For example, by including Microsoft Messenger and Windows Media Player with every copy of Windows, they claim that Windows users have less need to download and use competing products such as AOL Instant Messenger or RealPlayer, and thus will stick with the Microsoft alternatives even if the competing products are superior. Critics see this as a clear case of a monopoly based on vertical integration, which tends to starve the rival companies while giving Microsoft time to adopt their features. Microsoft defends its behavior by stating that it is giving its customers more software for free, and that it is doing the best it can to innovate and compete in a capitalist market.

Many companies have sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen intellectual property and anticompetitive business practices, and some of these cases have been decided against Microsoft. However, the cases often drag on for years due to appeals and delays initiated by Microsoft, so that by the time a verdict is delivered, the case has long since become irrelevant and the targeted company is no longer a viable competitor. Some argue that these cases as well as the resulting restrictions which have been placed on the company's behavior are in fact an intentional business tactic of the company.

[edit]

Government anti-trust suits

In the 1990s, Microsoft adopted exclusionary licensing under which PC manufacturers were required to pay for an MS-DOS license even when the system shipped with an alternative operating system. Critics allege that it also used allegedly predatory tactics to price its competitors out of the market and that Microsoft erected technical barriers to make it appear that competing products did not work on its operating system <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. An investigation by the United States Department of Justice on August 21, 1993 resulted in an opinion stating that this behavior was illegal; in a consent decree issued on July 15, 1994, Microsoft agreed to a deal in which, among other things, that the company would not "tie" other Microsoft products into its operating system.

After bundling the Internet Explorer web browser into its Windows operating system in the late 1990s and acquiring a dominant share in the web browser market, an antitrust case was brought against Microsoft. In a series of rulings by judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, the company was found to have violated its earlier consent decree and abused its monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. The "findings of fact" during the antitrust case established that Microsoft has a monopoly in the PC desktop operating systems market:

Template:"</ref>}}

The findings of fact goes on to explain the nature of the "barrier to entry":

Template:"

The proposed remedy (dividing Microsoft into two companies) was overturned on appeal, and Microsoft has since reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and some of the states which brought suit against it. Some speculate that this was due to the new administration that took place when George W. Bush was elected president. Several class-action lawsuits filed after the conviction are still pending.

In early 2002, Microsoft proposed to settle the private lawsuits by donating $1 billion USD in money, software, services, and training, including Windows licenses and refurbished PCs, to about 12,500 underprivileged public schools. This was seen by some as a potential windfall for Microsoft, not only in educating schoolchildren on Microsoft solutions but also in collecting additional license fees if the schools ever wanted to upgrade. After protests from Apple Computer, which feared further loss of its educational market share, a federal judge rejected the proposed settlement. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

In 2003–2004, the European Commission investigated the bundling of Windows Media Player into Windows, a practice which rivals complained was destroying the market for their own products. Negotiations between Microsoft and the Commission broke down in March 2004, and the company was subsequently handed down a record fine of €497 million ($613 million) for its breaches of EU competition law. Separate investigations into alleged abuses of the server market were also ongoing at the same time. On December 22, 2004, the European Court decided that the measures imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission would not be delayed, as was requested by Microsoft while waiting for the appeal. Microsoft has since paid a €497 million fine, shipped versions of Windows without Windows Media Player, and licensed many of the protocols used in its products to developers in countries within the European Economic Area.

[edit]

Other suits and rulings by governments

In March 2004, during a consumer class-action lawsuit in Minnesota, internal documents subpoenaed from Microsoft revealed that the company had violated nondisclosure agreements seven years earlier in obtaining business plans from Go Corporation, using them to develop and announce a competing product named PenWindows, and convincing Intel to reduce its investment in Go. After Go was purchased by AT&T and Go's tablet-based computing efforts were shelved, PenWindows development was dropped. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

In May 2004, a class-action lawsuit accused Microsoft of overcharging customers in the state of California. The company settled the case for $1.1 billion, and a California court ordered Microsoft to pay an additional $258 million in legal fees (including over $3,000 per hour for the lead attorney in the case, more than $2,000 per hour for colleagues, and in excess of $1,000 per hour for administrative work). A Microsoft attorney responded, "Somebody ends up paying for this. These large fee awards get passed on to consumers." <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. The total bill for legal fees was later reduced to just over $112 million <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. Because of the structure of the settlement, the law firm which sued Microsoft could end up getting more money from the company than California consumers and schools, the beneficiaries of the settlement.

[edit]

Suits by private companies

Microsoft has also fought numerous legal battles against private companies. The most prominent ones are against:

  • Apple Computer, which accused Microsoft in the late 1980s of copying the "look and feel" of the graphical user interface of Apple's operating systems. The courts ruled in favor of Microsoft in 1994.
  • Be Inc, which accused Microsoft of exclusionary and anticompetitive behavior intended to drive Be out of the market. Be even offered to license its BeOS operating system for free to any PC vendors who would ship it pre-installed, but the vendors declined due to what Be believes were fears of pricing retaliation from Microsoft: by raising the price of Microsoft Windows for one particular PC vendor, Microsoft could price that vendor's PCs out of the market.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Burst.com, which claims that Microsoft stole Burst's patented technology for delivering high speed streaming sound and video content on the internet. Also at issue in the case is a 35-week period of missing emails in the evidence Microsoft handed over to Burst which was discovered by Burst.com's lawyers. Burst accuses Microsoft of crafting a 30 day email deletion policy specifically to cover up illegal activity. Microsoft settled with the company for $60 million in exchange for an agreement to license some of the company's technologies. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Eolas and University of California, which accused Microsoft of using some of its software patents in their web browser, won $521 million in court. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Caldera, which accused Microsoft of having modified Windows 3.1 so that it would not run on DR DOS 6 although there was no technical reason for it not to work <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. Some claim that Microsoft put encrypted code in five otherwise unrelated Microsoft programs in order to prevent the functioning of DR DOS in pre-releases (beta versions) of Windows 3.1<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>.
  • Netscape Communications (regarding integration of Internet Explorer into Windows)
  • Opera, which accused Microsoft of intentionally making its MSN service incompatible with the Opera browser on several occasions.
  • Sendo, which accused Microsoft of terminating their partnership so it could steal Sendo's technology to use in Windows Smartphone 2002. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Spyglass, which licensed its browser to Microsoft in return for a percentage of each sale; Microsoft turned the browser into Internet Explorer and bundled it with Windows, giving it away to gain market share but effectively destroying any chance of Spyglass making money from the deal they had signed with Microsoft; Spyglass sued for deception and won a $8 million settlement. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Stac Electronics, which accused Microsoft of stealing its data compression code and using it in MS-DOS 6. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
  • Sun Microsystems, which held Microsoft in violation of contract for including a modified version of Java in Microsoft Windows that allowed applications written with Microsoft proprietary extensions to the Java language to run; Microsoft lost this decision in court. Microsoft responded by not shipping a Java Virtual Machine at all, and since then users have had to download one from the internet on all new Windows installations.
  • WordPerfect
  • Many other smaller companies have filed patent abuse and predatory practice suits against Microsoft.
[edit]

Labor practices

While Microsoft has historically treated employees very well, Microsoft has received several complaints about their treatment of employees. This includes the use of permatemp employees (employees employed for years as "temporary," and therefore without medical benefits), use of forced retention tactics, where departing employees would be sued to prevent departure, as well as more traditional cost-saving measures, ranging from cutting medical benefits, to not providing towels in company locker rooms. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>.

Historically, Microsoft has also been accused of overworking employees, in many cases, leading to burnout within just a few years of joining the company. The company is often referred to as a "Velvet Sweatshop", which originated in a Seattle Times article in 1989 <ref>Template:Cite news</ref>, and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>. The focus of the idea is that Microsoft provides nearly everything for their employees in a convenient place, but in turn overworks them to a point where it would be bad for their (possibly long-term) health. For example, the kitchenettes have free beverages and many buildings include exercise rooms and showers. However, the accusation is that they try to keep employees at the company for unreasonably long hours and working too much. This is detailed in several books about Microsoft, including "Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire." More to the point, in 1996 a class action lawsuit was brought against Microsoft representing thousands of current and former employees that had been classified as "temporary" and "freelance", known as "Vizcaino". The case was decided on the basis that such "permatemps" had their jobs defined by Microsoft, worked alongside regular employees doing the same work, and worked for long terms. After a series of court setbacks, Microsoft settled the suit for $100 million.

[edit]

Advertising and public relations

Microsoft contributes money to several think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. These organizations have often been called "shills" by Microsoft's critics, who allege that the groups are paid by Microsoft in order to spread Microsoft propaganda under the appearance of being neutral and unaffiliated who instead attempt to harm Microsoft's competitors by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt with statements such as "open-source software may offer [a] target for terrorists".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom ordered Microsoft to stop a run of print ads which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003. According to the ASA, the comparison included the price of the hardware, and it put Windows on systems which were less expensive and offered better performance than those on which it put Linux. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref> <ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

[edit]

Total cost of ownership

The full cost of software extends far beyond the purchase of the software itself; it can include costs for support, training, and upgrades. There is an ongoing debate regarding how to accurately measure the cost of software.

Microsoft supporters argue that the position and architecture of Microsoft software results in a lower "total cost of ownership" than competing open-source solutions such as Linux, the Apache web server, or the MySQL database. They contend that:

  • Microsoft software is designed to be easy to configure, allowing companies to hire lower-paid non-expert systems administrators.
  • There is a large pool of trained and certified Microsoft administrators available to help in deploying and managing Microsoft systems.
  • The Microsoft software ecosystem is designed to work well together since many products come from the same vendor.

Detractors argue that users do not own Microsoft software - it is licensed, forcing the user to have to obey the vendor's licensing agreements, and requiring regular upgrade costs - and therefore "total cost of ownership" comparisons with open source software do not compare like with like. Furthermore:

  • Lower base staff competence and less reliable software spells more problems.
  • Reducing computer insecurity requires highly trained systems administrators, regardless of the operating system in use; insecurity can result in large additional costs and losses.

In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom found print ads run by Microsoft which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003 to be misleading. The comparison included different hardware and therefore the ASA believed the ads were misleading as they suggested the cost difference involved only the operating systems. <ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>

[edit]

IDC study: Linux TCO vs Windows 2000 TCO

In October 2002, Microsoft commissioned IDC to determine the total cost of ownership (TCO) for enterprise applications on Windows 2000 versus the TCO of Linux on the same enterprise applications. IDC looked at security and other infrastructure tasks, and Web Serving. According to the report, Windows 2000 had a lower TCO for four infrastructure items and Linux had a lower TCO for web serving. IDC's report was based on telephone interviews of IT executives and managers of 104 North American companies in which they determined what they were using for a specific workload for file, print, security and networking services.

IDC determined that the four areas where Windows 2000 had a better TCO than Linux — over a period of five years for an average organisation of 100 employees — were in the use of file, print, network infrastructure and security infrastructure. They determined, however, that Linux had a better TCO than Windows 2000 when it came to web serving. The report also found that the greatest cost was not in the procurement of software and hardware, but in staffing costs and downtime. The report did not take into consideration the impact of downtime to the profitability of the business (although they did apply a 40% productivity factor, in order to recognise that employees are not entirely unproductive during periods of IT infrastructure downtime) though it did find that Linux servers had less unplanned downtime than Windows 2000 Servers. They found that most Linux servers ran less workload per server than Windows 2000 servers and also found that none of the businesses they interviewed used 4-way SMP Linux computers. IDC also did not take into account specific application servers — servers that need low maintenance and are provided by a specific vendor — when they performed their study. The report did emphasise that TCO was only one factor in considering whether to use a particular IT platform, and also noted that as management and server software improved and became better packaged the overall picture that was being shown in their report could change Template:Ref.

[edit]

Criticism

This study was one of the most criticised studies, since Microsoft funded it. Many editorials were written about the study, including one by The Register [1].

[edit]

Cybersource TCO study: Linux versus Windows

Melbourne-based Cybersource compared in 2004 the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of running Linux versus Windows in the enterprise. It studies found that Linux was 36% cheaper than Windows, when taking into account the software cost as well as service, support and upgrades. The study done in 2004 was an update on their previous studies in 2002, and found the same results.

[edit]

See also

[edit]

References

| first =Wendy 
| last =Goldman Rohm 
| authorlink = 
| coauthors = 
| year = 1998
| month =September
| title =The Microsoft File: the secret case against Bill Gates
| chapter = 
| editor = 
| others = 
| edition = 
| pages = 
| publisher = Times Books
| location =New York, NY 10022 
| id = ISBN 0-8129-2716-8
| url =http://www.randomhouse.com

}}

[edit]

Footnotes

<references/>

[edit]

External links

Retrieved from "http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/Criticism_of_Microsoft"