Re: Replacing Linux with Windows, based on *cost*?
> Maybe they felt they needed a relatively more expensive PC to run Windows well than to run Linux well back in 2004, but now the cheapest possible PC will run either well?
Munich had many machines running W2K. They needed to be replaced to run XP but could be recycled to run Limux. This was a significant cost saving (ignored by TheVogan and the Microsoft funded HP report).
It is likely that any move to Win10 will require new machines plus extensive retraining costs for those used to Limux/OOo and/or Win7/Office2007 or so.
Of course Microsoft may well buy the business (ie bribes and free stuff) just for the publicity.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
