OPPapers.com

Microsoft Vs. Linux

Cost and Market Share
There are a quite a few advantages to using Microsoft products over Linux. It is true that Linux source is freely available and users can build a good reliable system using it but to build a Linux system, a user needs good knowledge of a compiler
program to compile the kernel and build the basic system, good knowledge of the Linux/Unix file system, the ability to scour through the net and find programs freely available to use and a good chunk of time. How much knowledge is required to use Microsoft operating system? Not much, it's really built for people with little to no skills except maybe how to use a mouse and keyboard. The second is in the support field; hands up if you know a Linux guru, they are rare and they spout free software with one hand and charge a hundred bucks an hour with another. Now throw a rock into a crowd and you'll hit a Windows expert and if you shop around you probably get one cheap because they haven't had to be super programmers before they could learn the inner workings of the OS. Now let's get to software. Choices for Linux are growing but still limited to free source, compile yourself stuff or semi-professional MS office. In argument for Microsoft, we ask how much we value our time. Do you want to spend three weeks getting the system just right (or paying someone to do it) or just insert your windows disc and click install? Half an hour later you've got something you can use which is pretty reliable and has heaps of support and software.
Can Linux compete with Microsoft and cut into the market share? According to the Yankee Group's 2005 survey of 500 American companies the answer is no. Linux has held its ground with 15% of the market share while Microsoft has 73% and other operating systems have 12%. Microsoft Windows has the market where they want them and there is very low probability that companies will switch completely from Microsoft to Linux. However, Linux does maintain a strong server...