TUCKER: My expert would totally disprove that.
LANGHAM: Who is your expert?
TUCKER: I don’t know, but I can get one by this afternoon. The thing is, you’ve
been listening to the wrong expert. You need to listen to the right expert. And
you need to know what an expert is going to advise you before he advises
By and large this doesn't happen in Enterprise-level organizations. Old, out of warranty hardware is removed in favour of warrantied hardware.
If you look at list pricing or in the US (I imagine Germany has something similar) government pricing, you can spec everything with the highest cost "Select" pricing, (which is fixed cost) or other schemes which will be higher.
If you compute the cost over 5 years and want Microsoft to look bad, you spec things with non-transferrable OEM pricing for servers and other products. You buy Windows server in the "Standard" edition and use VMware.
If you want Microsoft to look "good", you spec the pricing based on 3 year enterprise agreements with platform discounts. (Platform discounts are incentives to license Windows, Core CAL and Office together). With an enterprise agreement, you amortize the license cost over 3 years, and pay only maintenance year 4 and 5 (typically 20-25% of the initial annual cost), so you can make the Microsoft TCO much better. On the server side, you buy Windows Datacenter and System Center, and use Hyper-V.
Both approaches are truthful, but will yield vastly different results and will be accurate if you follow through. The tough part about Linux/OSS vs Microsoft, especially for user-facing stuff, is that many of the costs are people costs, and can be harder to predict.
Sometimes I wonder if they do this just so that every "audit" generates fines? Even for companies TRYING to do everything above board it is a complex, expensive, process.
I'm STILL trying to get a direct answer on how the anti-virus ("Windows Defender") in Windows 8 is licensed. MSE (Win 7/Vista) has a 10 licence limit (for businesses).
I've asked Microsoft people and they cannot answer...
Having tried to use OpenOffice for my office needs, I'd be curious to see how this works out for them. Needless to say, I haven't used OpenOffice in years and have no desire to try again. If I were going with a Linux solution, I'd try to get as many workers using cloud-based apps as possible.
Not every worker could do this, but from my experience with ChromeOS, the majority of general office workers could get their work done with it, and it's a cheap, secure and stable solution. But a lot of governments may not want to touch cloud services and may not know how to develop their own.
That's like eons in actively developed software. I believe giving LibreOffice a spin may change your notion of the quality of the OS alternative. As an anecdote, Excel 2003 has 65K row limit. In current LO it's ~ 1M rows if I remember correctly. I will admit that it is a bit apples to oranges, since Excel 2003 was created way back, but in practical terms, that is what I get on my office desktop. Being able to run LO as an alternative can be a life saver...
You lose productivity, which can be converted into dollars in the case of a business (not so easy with a non-profit generating government I think), but that's about it.
It's more a hypothetical case study than some real study based on facts (or even the same facts).
These things are usually filled with NDAs.
Being forced into using new software because it's cheaper may end up giving that software a bad rep.
A study by HP on behalf of Microsoft? How is this even allowed? There's a conflict of interest here and it's not a small one. I'd seek a competent court (either at the national or supra-national level) to fill a complaint.