From: "Joe Barr" 


The point I made is valid for TCO.  That point is that it is most often
nothing more than a marketing trick, a ploy, a deceipt, duplicity by
designl.

TCO (even if valid in the first instance) for one firm is not the same as
TCO for another

Microsoft is scum.  Bill Gates is a lying thief.  Richard Shupak doesn't
have the balls to be a thief, so he is only a liar.  Everyone at MS in
between the two are scum as well.  If MS funds a TCO study, you can be sure
that they will like more and better than the competition.  But any TCO
study funded by one firm is bound to be false as well.  It's not just
Mcicrosoft that makes it so.

They can lie about startup costs and they can lie about ongoing.  It makes
no difference to them.








On Sun, 05 Jan 2003 11:50:52 +0000, Geo. wrote:

> That's initial cost, not admin costs.
>
> Geo.
>
> "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> news:3e18220f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>
>> How about this one.  It includes a copy of the infamous "Enterprise
>> Agreement" as well as invoices proving the City of Austin now
has to pay
>> twice for every copy of Windows used on the desktop.
>>
>> http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/1219.barr.html
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 21:41:43 +0000, Egan Orion wrote:
>>
>> > Joe,
>> >
>> > Back that up in a factually based article:  I'll quote you and link
>> > it.
>> >
>> > All the best (as Will Z. used to say, before he sold out to
>> > Microsoft), Egan
>>
>>

--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4