Microsoft says that the release of Windows Server 2003 and a 64-bit SQL Server proves it can compete with Unix vendors in datacentre computing. But analysts say that the products will appeal mainly to NT4 users looking to move to newer versions. Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer today launches software that the company says builds on three years experience with its first datacentre product, Windows Server 2000.
Now we Can Compete with Unix, Microsoft Claims
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The claim might not be quite true at the moment, but it will be true sooner than later .. Its only a matter of time … unix vendors need to buckle up
I love it when a monopoly is using their muscle to move into another market segment and they call it “competing”.
With any new Microsoft product, especially one as complex as Server 2003, it is best to wait at least a year until the bugs are worked out before using it in an environment as sensitive as the datacenter.
The car analogy really does hold true. Just as you buy a car at the end of its model run to get the debugged version and the good price, it makes sense to buy Windows 2003 when you can get the 2004 or 2005 version of Windows 2003. There are usually price drops, rebates, and all sorts of special offers available. And when you pay your money, you actually get a working product. Barring things like Windows XP SP1 and its broken memory management, that is.
Alas, none of this much matters. With the USDOJ-MICROSOFT partnership, companies will be forced to use Microsoft products so that they SQL2DOJ system works properly.
The UNIX vendors of course need to worry. They still think things like “open standards” are important. Sounds like dinosaur-speak to me.
It seems like the more time passes, the more Windows is trying to be like *nix and the more *nix is trying to be like Windows. I think it would make more sense if each would stick to what it is inherently good at – Windows on the desktop and Unix/Linux on the server.
Man… the UNIX envy of this company is hilarious….
“given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventually invent UNIX” – a usenet post in 1998 (half a decade ago).
Microsoft makes money with Windows & Office.
Microsoft loses money everywhere else.
“Those who do not understand UNIX are destined
to reinvent it, poorly.” — Henry Spencer
Unix is not perfect, and a lot of people are delusional to think so. You’re just as blind as MS zealots.
he! No OS is perfect, but MS has this big ego they THINK they are the best with everything and they DON’T tolerate competition (if they were god they created NO competitors at all). Now yelling that win2003 can replace a unix server is just “air”, ofcourse you can replace a unix server with it. But will it work on criticial applications (hospitals/power plants/banks etc etc)? Neh dont’ think so. MS makes to many stupid faults, i pointing for example to patches they release. It’s always the big question, will they work?!? (yes even when u tested on a non production server, i know with my own experience). Reall nice to not seeing a mission critical server not booting up.
Well I rather see BSD/Linux as the big threat, well we all know MS pr and these “stupid” IT managers. Let’s wait and see
On quite a few machines, SP1 cripples the memory management code in Windows XP. Everything runs more slowly and the machine crashes much more often.
How do you fix this? You have to BEG Microsoft for a secret patch! It is not available for public download!
Now that is what I call ‘building the sale’. Force people to call Microsoft (for $$$$) to get the patch that unfucks their machine.
Just one more example of why you shouldn’t run your company on the Microsoft Monopoly’s spyware.
I think it would make more sense if each would stick to what it is inherently good at – Windows on the desktop and Unix/Linux on the server.
I use Solaris with KDE on the desktop at work through choice. Windows isn’t unstable, but who can say their Windows workstation has run flawlessly for over a year without needing rebooted? I’ve got apps that do the same as I’d expect to be able to do on a Windows workstation. Most Windows users I know have either re-installed their OS or upgraded their machine (due to bloated software) since the last time I rebooted my Sun workstation. I think I’ll stick with Sun for the moment! 🙂
The only reason I’d change is if my employer told me I had to use an application that wasn’t available for Solaris.
I wouldn’t be too proud of competing with Unix; at least not the overpriced commercial stuff out there. In the lower level where 64 bit Windows matches commercial Unix, of course it is going to be cheaper to run Windows.
Now, can Windows compete with 64 bit Linux, and FreeBSD, now that SMP is stabilizing…
Joisting with windmills.
How many times have we heard this, the claim that NT will be a better unix than unix? it can slice, dice and the first 50 callers in the next 5minutes will get a free steak knife set! but wait, there is more! for those who really like being sucked into the abyss of proprietary software, why not move completely to Microsoft and really put your short and curlies into the hands on Microsoft? they’ll love you for it!
Advise to so-called “MS Shops”, who is going to stop Microsoft from turning around and tightening the screws any tighter than they are now? they know you’re completely reliant on Microsoft, and if you decide to move, it will cost you an arm and a leg because you’ve moved all of you critical information to a proprietary Microsoft format. You might as well have provided them with a loaded gun when I hear such diatripe from Gil Gates trying to claim that Microsoft is looking out for the “best interests” of its customer base.
Unlike Gil, I am under no illusions, but atleast if you’re with UNIX, you’re not being grabbed by the short and curlies. HP starts screwing you, then the migration to another SYSV environment won’t be that difficult. If Microsoft starts screwing you, well, you’re plain out screwed. For business in that position, you made your bed, now sleep in it!
Big amen to you Mat
I remember many and many times the same company claimed the same words.
I can not trust a cheater.
I am not a fool.
I simply don’t believe that we live in an honorable economic system where the “best man wins”. Capitalism is a rigged game and a broken system, as I’ve said often enough around here before.
MSFT’s dominance is based on the fact that they are brilliant capitalists (they are merely ‘competent’ software developers). The full force of the American capitalist system is behind MSFT and it is totally overwhelming everyone’s aesthetic choices for what software actually merits widespread use.
Well, too f*cking bad. Welcome to the real world.
And please stop misrepresenting my opinions on this board.
Whats a reboot????
Two points:
1) Bill Gates and co are not capitalists, they’re technocrats at best. Neither Bill Gates nor Steve Balmer have any of their own money ridding on the success of their products. If you want to see a real capitalist, talk to you local small business owner.
2) Capitalism can be a veyr efficient system when there is a Commerce commission will balls of steel willing to punish those who pervert the freemarket, as with the case of Microsoft and many other companies. Those companies with a natural monopoly, such as lines companies, need to be regulated to ensure that they do not exploit their position in the market.
There is no such thing as American capitalism, at least in the sense of what Adam Smith had in mind. Adam Smith’s capitalism was based on a moral foundation.
The American version of ‘capitalism’ is the totally corrupt, rigged, devoid of morality and broken system that Gil describes.
Microsoft *is* the best ruthless amoral evil predator. There is no disputing that. The great strength of Gates is that he didn’t get educated with ‘noble slave mentality’. Gates is the amoral general whose only job is to keep winning wars. And he has done very well.
The only way to beat Microsoft is to wield power as effectively as they do and to execute a brilliant and visionary strategy against them. The leader of the rebel army has to out-general Gates.
Just as the Catholic church found out, an attack can come out of left field and be totally decimating. Microsoft is also vulnerable and Gates knows some of these vulnerabilities. And that is why you get some of the neurotic behavior.
One must remember when dealing with Microsoft that they utilize doublespeak almost continuously. They use the term ‘compete with’ instead of ‘crush’, things like that. Microsoft is based on two solid monopolies and hence does not actually ‘compete’ in any market they are in. They work to establish a beachhead and then work to start outflanking their enemy. Slowly but surely they gain ground until the day that they eventually cut their enemy’s head off and put it on a stake. The only thing that Microsoft respects is force.
When it comes to UNIX, Gates knows he could never have won a fair fight. But he doesn’t care as the world is not a fair world. Fairness is only part of a slave’s education, not a ruler’s education.
A better way of putting is this: Capitalism worships a false god and communism declares that there is no god. Neither system is workable without some morals. At the end of they day, as you said, an effective capitalist society is built on fair competition. This fair competition is reliant on having an effective regulatory body that enforces the laws that ensure that no one business has an overwelming force/influence in a particular market.
On this ground alone the DOJ has failed to carry out its duty as a regulatory body to ensure that Microsoft influence does not result in negative spin offs for society. When a company gets to the size of Microsoft, what is going to stop Microsoft from creating barriers to entry, both technical and legal/contractral? this is what many Microsoft chair leaders and fan boys fail to realise. Lets say a lines company buys out a power plant, and refuses entry to competing energy resellers/generators, or simply allows access but the interconnection costs are so high that the competition is unable to compete, would these fan boys and chairleaders be happy with that monopoly increasing their electricity prices? would they be happy that they have no choice in who their supplier is?
I agree with you on both counts.
Yes, Microsoft already has two monopolies (desktop OS, office suites) and is getting close to their third (server OS). Of course, Microsoft uses their monopoly power and power to create all sorts of barriers to competition. It is widely known that the DOJ cut a behind-the-scenes deal with Microsoft. In exchange for spying on Windows users and assistance constructing a police state, Microsoft got off with no penalty in their antitrust trial.
I’m not sure what you are saying about gods/no gods, but in simple terms there is no such thing in America as moral capitalism (i.e. Adam Smith capitalism). We do not have open markets. We do not have moral companies. We do not have moral regulatory systems. We have a legal system that is totally corrupt. It was corruption that killed the USSR and it will be corruption that kills the USA. It works every time and there is no cure.
In the absence of any sort of social contract and morality in American business, there can be no legitimate expectation that a company will act in a socially beneficial manner. In fact, we find that most companies do everything they can to avoid any sort of social responsibility whatsoever.
The rule of law has been subverted and its basis on moral principles is gone. Check out the opinion of a very well respected US judge.
“The American legal system has been corrupted almost beyond recognition, Judge Edith Jones of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, told the Federalist Society of Harvard Law School on February 28.”
http://massnews.com/2003_Editions/3_March/030703_mn_american_legal_…
So back to Microsoft. They are not a moral company. They are not a humane company. They are a ruthless, amoral, evil, predator. It is in their nature to disregard laws and rules. They are the Standard Oil of Software. And they are in an evil alliance with the US government to build a police state. There is currently nothing that can stop Microsoft. They will eventually crush all their competition unless some chaotic event comes out of nowhere to give them a death blow.
Since I’ve yet to use Win 2003 Server, I can’t speak for its capabilities or flaws. But, what I hate about M$ is that they claim superiority over a rival when they know that they aren’t in the same league. I recall a speech Bill Gates gave where he stated that Windows 98 offered better value than Solaris.