Hello,
I was wondering about Windows and Linux hosting prices. What should the price difference be between Linux plans and Windows ASP plans?

Cheers,

It depends on what pricing structure you're wanting to use.

Does one have more overheads than the other? If so, you might want to charge more for the one that'll cost you more.

Does one offer more features (obviously ASP is one)? Value-added services should be reflected in the price.

Linux is free, Windows is not, so charge more for windows, and less for linux...

Yes but if I were to have Cent OS on one server and RedHat on another server, I am not going to change my pricing for that just because RedHat costs money. The clients pay for the features, service, quality, space/bandwidth and support that you offer, not what OS their account runs on.

I think the only case in which you raise your prices is if you offer Windows Hosting as well as Unix hosting. Then they will have an option and then it seems right to charge extra but otherwise if it is the only OS you run on I would not suggest changing your prices just because of the OS.

Yes but if it costs more to run the OS, wouldnt it make sense to raise the price, to adjust for the additional price of the OS to keep the same profit margin? If you kept prices the same, then the profit margin would be much lower and then it might not even be worth it to offer the windows OS at all.

Yes but unless the user found your site by looking up "windows hosting" I think most people look for a web host on it's quality, service, space etc.. and not the OS. Don't mistake me as there are people that do that but I believe that you potential revenue of income could be larger if you don't raise the price.

Yes but if I were to have Cent OS on one server and RedHat on another server, I am not going to change my pricing for that just because RedHat costs money. The clients pay for the features, service, quality, space/bandwidth and support that you offer, not what OS their account runs on.


That's not a valid comparison--it's not really a good idea to run Windows apps on a Unix machine in a server environment, and you CAN'T run Unix binaries in Windows.

So people who want to be on a Windows machine ARE paying for the OS.

As stated before, unless the person is specifically looking for a windows hosting provider, the price should not be raised. This can be determined by raising the price and offering both, Unix and Windows Operating enviroments.

I guess it's not obvious to everyone that most people who choose Windows over UNIX do it because....they want Windows.

Linux is free, Windows is not, so charge more for windows, and less for linux... That statement is outrageous.

Tweb, I'm surprised you didn't IM me about this yet ;-) but as I suggested before, your pricing should be dependant on your costs and what profit you want to make.

If you're paying $300 a month for a windows box and $249 for a linux box... obviosuly you'll want to charge extra for windows hosting... As others have suggested ... sit down with a calculator and crunch some numbers.

Good luck with your venture.

Just to give everyone an idea here... Windows 2003 Standard edition is priced at around $29/mo under Microsoft's SPLA. RedHat Linux ES is priced at around $25/mo

So the difference in pricing of the operating systems is small. Even if you used CentOs, the difference is not as much to factor into your pricing. We have our Windows pricing slightly higher than Linux pricing because we also offer SQL Server, which is priced at $189/mo.. That is big enough to factor..

Windows Maintenance also requires roughly more hours from a qualified tech than Linux. Tracking/shutting down user abuse on Windows can take longer than on linux

I would say that there is less in difference as it is generally more expensive to support Linux than Windows.

Linux = Higher support costs, low licensing
Windows = Lower support costs, higher licensing

Rgds,
Chris

We charge more for our windows hosting because windows licenses cost more than FreeBSD (we use FreeBSD for our web servers, rather than linux).

Windows costs more for licensing, and it costs more for support (just because you can use windowsXP does not mean you know how to properly manage a Windows 2003 Server, and configure IIS / SQL and manage dozens of user accounts etc, as well as keep it secure).

Plus, people when they look at our plans, often times will sign up for the windows hosting because they are running windows, not because they know a difference between windows/unix on the server. So they pay more, just to build a site with site-studio which would run just as well on a *nix server. Who am I to complain?

Windows costs more for licensing, and it costs more for support (just because you can use windowsXP does not mean you know how to properly manage a Windows 2003 Server, and configure IIS / SQL and manage dozens of user accounts etc, as well as keep it secure).


And this is not the same for linux??? I.E. "and it costs more for support (just because you can install Linux does not mean you know how to properly manage a Linux, and configure APACHE / MYSQL and manage dozens of user accounts etc, as well as keep it secure)."

A Windows tech will require the same wage as any decent Linux tech.

Rgds,
Chris

Actually, people with windows are used to taking it up the backside... :)

Linux = Higher support costs, low licensing
Windows = Lower support costs, higher licensing


Ladies and gentlemen we have a Gartner subscriber!

Sorry, windows does not have lower support costs. While MSCE's are cheap to hire, it also takes many more of them to configure and run the vastly greater number of servers it takes to properly run a windows network.

On the other hand, linux/unix machines are actually CAPABLE of running multiple purposes/functions (DNS/email/etc) without crashing, and thus require far fewer support personnel.

It is well known that one linux administrator can admin far more boxes than a single MSCE can. We can attribute that largely to linux/unix's great NON-GUI admin tools and the ease of completing common tasks, and window's lack thereof.

@innova: I'd recommend getting some trial versions of the latest version of Windows 2003 server and actually trying to use them before you comment, also get a copy of technet and find out about the command line tools.

Guys, i've giving my personal opinion, i use both windows and linux daily, and therefore can compare them. I can see where this thread will go and am above going down that road. If any of you would like to discuss the matter further please PM me.

Kind Regards,
Chris Allen

Good to see that we have such saintly people here who are 'above' a discussion. Whatever.. if you dont want to comment any further, so be it.

I'd recommend getting some trial versions of the latest version of Windows 2003 server and actually trying to use them before you comment, also get a copy of technet and find out about the command line tools.

That is a good point. I am not above doing so, but windows is far, far behind linux in even the most basic commandline tools. I recall the press release surrounding their decision to roll out enhanced commandline tools.. Most people at the time knew well that linux has had these features since at least 1994.

Anyway, to get back to the cost issue:

A July study, conducted by Chad Robinson, senior research analyst at tech/business researcher Robert Frances Group (RFG), supports Schenkenfelder's claims. Robinson acknowledges that experienced admins for Linux or Solaris can be more expensive in some parts of the United States but noted that many of them have been working with Unix for dozens of years.

"One of the things that Microsoft is starting to lose out on now, and I'm not sure they realize this yet, is that they still claim Windows administrators are cheaper," Robinson said. "But the flip side of the same coin is that if one of my administrators on a Windows environment can manage only 10 to 15 systems at a time, but my Solaris admin or my NetBSD or my Linux admin can manage 1,000 servers at a time, I need fewer admins. Sure, the salary's more expensive, but I get more life out of them."

Anyway, the link is here:
http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2907876,00.html

Yes, I know its a Zdnet story.. that doesnt hold a lot of weight with me personally. Nevertheless, many of the points made have been made elsewhere.

I also have a lot of experience with windows, having ran online services on 2000 and XP pro. You know how I administer the boxes? I install Cygwin and/or SFU.. because the windows scripting environment is THAT horrible. I am well aware of the PITA that is windows scripting host / VB and it doesnt begin to approach the usefullness of a decent SHELL and maybe some Perl scripts.

See, being a sysadmin is not really about knowing how to manually configure a DNS or email server.. its about writing some tools to do it for you, and windows suffers terribly in that regard.

On the other hand, linux/unix machines are actually CAPABLE of running multiple purposes/functions (DNS/email/etc) without crashing, and thus require far fewer support personnel.


No I disagee. Windows boxes, especially 2003 can easily handle many processes/programs without crashing.



It is well known that one linux administrator can admin far more boxes than a single MSCE can. We can attribute that largely to linux/unix's great NON-GUI admin tools and the ease of completing common tasks, and window's lack thereof.
Yes, I agree with this. Windows does lack many command line tools linux administrators enjoy... However that isn't really a disadvantage. With good internet connectivity to your servers, TSC & RDC both allow administrators to quickly and easily perform common tasks

With regards to scripting, perl is what is what we mainly use to automate tasks in Linux. True, Windows lacks the scripting architecture Linux has and hence VBScript becomes extremely limited. There is no unified scripting language that can allow you to manage everything.. But a combination of scripting and programming can allow you to achieve everything Linux could allow you to do.

VBScript for simple system tasks, ASP.NET for IIS6 pool management... C++ to run certain file maintenance tasks...

I would say that there is less in difference as it is generally more expensive to support Linux than Windows.

Linux = Higher support costs, low licensing
Windows = Lower support costs, higher licensing

It's sad people really believe when they say things like that, not even M$ believes their own propaganda, when they run this whole TCO campaign they used extremely skewed comparisons like a very expensive high-end server for the GNU/Linux setup and the cheapest off the shelf server for the Windows setup and then compared those to each other in terms of cost. Come on... :puke:

I work every day with Windows server, GNU/Linux server, Windows desktop, Mac desktop; and my experiences is that Windows needs by far more time than the alternatives, and even so it still offers less usability for the end users.

VBScript for simple system tasks, ASP.NET for IIS6 pool management... C++ to run certain file maintenance tasks...

Great, so you need to know 3 programming languages to do what you can do on *nix with one. As far as my personal preference goes, that's not acceptable.