Windows Servers Neck and Neck with Unix Servers 492
BrainSurgeon writes "According to the Register, Windows based servers are now even with Unix based servers in terms of sales for the first time ever." From the article: "In an overall up server market, IDC counted $4.2bn worth of Microsoft Windows server sales on the back of 12 percent growth. Total Unix sales also hit $4.2bn in the period, IDC said, on 3 per cent revenue growth. Those totals left Microsoft and Unix systems holding 35 per cent of the server market each."
Okay so... (Score:4, Interesting)
Netware and OS/X?
I'm suprised (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pun? (Score:5, Interesting)
By sales but not numbers...... (Score:3, Interesting)
My understanding is that more major server sales folks who are pushing some Unix flavor are trying to make their money on the Service that goes with the server, not the actual initial sale. In which case it would make sense that you could knock the price down on the Unix server that's running a free OS vs. the same machine that has a 500 CAL license for Windows 2003.
I wish they would have given us number of units vs. the cost of units.
This is just murky adspeak.
Re:Sales != volume (Score:5, Interesting)
It only cost a nickle to go see Gone With the Wind in first run.
KFG
Re:I'm suprised (Score:2, Interesting)
You would be mistaken to do that since it IS expected that Microsoft will take 50% of the market.
Problem for Microsoft is they then have to hold it against a rapidly increasing Linux - which right now is taking sales from UNIX more than it is Microsoft.
But once proprietary UNIX is dead - and it will be within five years or so - Windows server market share will then be eroded by Linux, resulting probably in a 75-25 distribution favoring Linux over the next five years.
Windows servers won't entirely go away until the Windows desktop goes away - which will happen, but take much longer.
Linux is excluded from Unix category (Score:2, Interesting)
Granted, the Linux server $1.2 billion factory revenue is less than a third of the Unix and less than a third of the Windows market, but hardly insignificant. Also much harder to trace, I reckon, given how many people strip Windows off a Dell and make a Linux server with a spare copy of Debian.
How accurate are these numbers? (Score:5, Interesting)
An example I recently was involved in: I work with a company doing software. Big and mission-critical systems. One big customer wanted a really big installation of this software. We recommended that this was run on either Linux, BSD or Solaris. Our customer had hired their own consultancy company, and these consultants were very pro-Microsoft. So the customer said "We need this to run on MS-Windows", and we said "Ok, our software can run on MS-Windows, although we cannot recommend it.".
So a big server park was ordered with MS-Windows preinstalled.
Then, as the project progressed, the customer also hired an Oracle consultant. This consultant said "I would not sleep well at night if these Oracle servers are running on MS-Windows. Other systems will give you more stable operation". So all the operating systems on the Oracle servers were scrapped, and Linux was installed instead.
Then, when all the servers were sent to a hosting provider, the hosting provider said to the customer "We see that while the Oracle servers run Linux, all the application servers run MS-Windows. We will be better at supporting this system if all the servers run the same OS, and you will probably have better uptime if running linux on the application servers too. If you don't mind we will install Linux on the application servers for you free of charge.". The customer accepted.
So while this big server park was purchased with MS-Windows pre-installed, all servers were running Linux before the system was put into use.
Re:sales or actual units? (Score:1, Interesting)
In the business world, money is the only thing that matters at the end of the day. Prevaricate all you wish about how X beats Y using metric Z. If it can't make money, who cares?
Re:You're also confused. (Score:3, Interesting)
It could easily serve over 150 users of static web content (probably over 500 users if the content is truly static). I still have an 1997 IBM PC325, dual PPro 200mhz w/384mb ram that can't possibly run any version of windows, but it has an uptime over 300 days, and linux installed on it since 1999 (new version two years ago) and is STILL a great primary DNS server. (actually I have a few of these doing various task). The stats do not reflect this.
I use old hardware for routers, dns, irc servers, test servers, honeypots, and non critical web servers all the time. These stats do not reflect ANY of this. And I pay for support from local companies to help reduce costs, but don't "pay" for Linux. All the servers run Linux now.
I also buy shiney new dual Xeon servers with RAID systems and gigs of ram, but I don't buy any OS, I just use Linux. I guess those aren't counted either.
All my Linux desktops started their life as "Windows Preinstalled" as well. Ironically, it was cheaper to get them with Windows than without.
Re:Windows should have 10 times the sales (Score:3, Interesting)
Excellent point.
Microsoft explicitly recommends running each server app on a DIFFERENT server. Don't run your Exchange on your Active Directory; don't run your license compliance app on the same server; don't run your SQL Server database on the same server.
Why? Simply because MS server app performance sucks because of "featuritis bloatware".
So how many of these new Windows servers in the study were actually running ONE-THIRD of what the Linux servers were doing?
As someone else pointed out, the roles these servers play have a bearing on the value of the figures.
Not that far from the truth (Score:5, Interesting)
Unix is more typically loaded up, running as many things as the hardware can handle. When it starts getting too loaded then you buy another one (usually a bigger one).
We've recently bought two quad processor linux machines running vmware to run a dozen or more windows servers. Two linux sales, a dozen windows sales.
Re:I'm suprised (Score:3, Interesting)
She is basically saying that because Linux is new and coming from a small base its growth percentage is out of whack and its impossible to predict what percentages it will post going forward.
Re:Okay so... (Score:3, Interesting)
Other IBM OSs? (Score:3, Interesting)
Quantifying RAS levels (Score:2, Interesting)
- "Both platforms have a rich inventory of ISV applications, but Unix servers have traditionally gained more revenue from sales in the midrange enterprise and high-end enterprise server segments, based on their ability to support scalable workloads and high RAS levels for mission-critical-workloads," said Jean Bozman, an analyst at IDC.
RAS stands for Reliability, Availability and Serviceability. Is this just a marketing buzzword or is there any real meaning behind this term?Can you measure and compare what the RAS level for a server is? The Software (OS and application) and Hardware in combination would play a factor in the RAS level. I would like to see a mathematical formula based on MTBF for hardware components (especially hard drives, power supplies) and OS and application software quality quantification(1) to create a RASmark level. It would help make server buying decisions less seat-of-the-pants so you can decide whether or not it's worth it to get the redundant power supply option and/or RAID level for a server to get to a required RAS level for your needs.
(1) It's difficult but not impossible to quantify software quality. There's plenty of real-world usage that can be surveyed to cancel out admin competence levels (another difficult item to measure) and other factors. Have to beware of zealots and a certain monopolist's FUD [eweek.com].