> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> Linux bucks slowing server sales
>> IDC reports lacklustre overall performance but strong Linux sales
>> Linux servers posted year-over-year revenue growth of 17 per cent and
>> unit shipments up 14.4 per cent
>> Linux servers posted their 15th consecutive quarter of double-digit
> But can roy boy do the arithmetic?
> "Microsoft Windows servers continued to show strong growth as revenues
> grew 5.9 per cent and unit shipments grew 12.9 per cent year over year.
> Significantly, quarterly factory revenue of $4.4bn for Windows servers
> represented the largest single segment of the server market, gaining 2.7
> points of revenue share over the first quarter of 2005 and comprising
> 37.1 per cent of all server revenue in the first quarter of 2006 as
> customers continue to deploy more fully configured Windows servers in
> support of scalable workloads and consolidation projects."
> Linux grew 17 percent, from $1.25B to $1.45B, which is a $200M increase,
> but Windows grew from $4.16B to $4.41B, a nifty $250M or $50M more than
> linux. So the gap continues to widen.
Has it occured to your logically challenged brain that Linux servers
typically cost far less (and in some cases, nothing) than windows servers.
The only meaningful comparison is between volumes, not sales, when the
prices of the products you are trying to compare are so different. Last
year, we had a choice between implementing a windows file server and a
linux server. My organization chose Redhat Linux (this is a 95%+ windows
workplace) and saved hundreds of dollars. Another department here did the
same. Now, if someone implemented a windows server solution, the earnings
of Microsoft would have been about as much as both the above installations.
According to your "logic", Microsoft marketshare would be equal to that of
Redhat, even when the latter has twice the number of servers running.