Windows to Hit 60 Percent of Server Unit Shipments by 2008

Advertisement (Why?)

Based on the restored demand for enterprise servers that began late last year, researchers at IDC are predicting strong growth for server systems through 2008, especially for Linux- and Windows-based boxes.

"There continues to be very strong growth in the x86 industry standard server market -- particularly for Windows- and Linux-based solutions," IDC analyst Mark Melenovsky said in a statement. "Growth has been strong for everything from stand-alone systems in small offices to several-hundred-node clusters in enterprise data centers." In terms of unit shipments, IDC expects Windows to dominate, capturing 60 percent of all server unit shipments in 2008. Linux-based servers will represent 29 percent of all server unit shipments by that time, the research firm projects.

View: Complete Article

News source: ENT News

Magoo adds....
This is a technique that has been on networks for some time, with assocations / anti-piracy groups inserting dummy songs into the networks, reducing their efficiency, frustrating users and generally making p2p less attractive than legitimatly purchasing the music / software. However, this is (and has been) of limited sucess, as people soon realise this and move over onto better networks (i.e. less fake files) which do not have these problems.

#1 eris on 20 Jun 2004 - 19:58

The problem with these estimates is that it is really hard to count Linux marketshare because there is no single vendor.

(3 replies) #2 Huezo on 20 Jun 2004 - 20:12

It's interesting that nobody has mentioned Apple's Xserve's yet.

I wonder if they're considered as a part of the "Linux" marketshare or they're separate.

#2.1 Mav Phoenix on 20 Jun 2004 - 20:13

Which companies actually use those?

#2.2 Huezo on 20 Jun 2004 - 20:16

QUOTE (#2.1)

Three that I know of in my city. (One of them being RCA). They are used for the mission-critical applications, everything else runs on Windows/Linux.

#2.3 eris on 20 Jun 2004 - 20:17

What about BSD?

Xserve's are actually quite neat because they have good gui tools.

#3 deadmonkey on 20 Jun 2004 - 21:27

I am currently replacing all out Novell servers with Windows Server 2003 (about 100 servers in total). However we still use FreeBSD a lot. Linux is good but we only ever use it for smaller tasks, not really sure why.

#4 Trix on 20 Jun 2004 - 21:45

hehe i want my own Xserve if only i had the money but like eris said there are so many vendors for linux how can you be sure? but i think the redhat enterprise and fedora will most prob beat windows 2003 imn the server market ebcause there free and really good although windows is nice ( i own each one O_O)

(10 replies) #5 moeburn on 20 Jun 2004 - 22:08

"particularly for Windows- and Linux-"

There are other server platforms? What, a guy in a cardboard box?

#5.1 JZolloXP on 20 Jun 2004 - 22:24

There are a few others, a few minor ones that aren't even worth mentioning. Windows & *nix are the major ones though.

#5.2 tapo on 20 Jun 2004 - 22:55

I'm not sure about Mac OS X, but BSD is too big in the server market to not even be mentioned.

I havn't even used BSD (failed to instal on my comp) but still, I hear it's damn good. Ever more stable then Linux. (And on Linux, my server has been up since September.)

#5.3 neonerd on 20 Jun 2004 - 23:19

QUOTE

Do you mind telling me your web address? Hopefully you do something really cool like e-commerce. Because you haven’t updated your computer since last September. Yes, even Linux has holes.

#5.4 MegaManXcalibur on 21 Jun 2004 - 00:42

He said it was up since September not that it wasn't updated since September. Remember Linux doesn't require a reboot when most things get updated.

#5.5 CaKeY on 21 Jun 2004 - 00:42

But unlike windows Linux doesnt need to be rebooted everytime something is updated.

#5.6 CaKeY on 21 Jun 2004 - 00:43

as usual beaten to the punch lol. ^^

#5.7 karmakillernz on 21 Jun 2004 - 01:08

Depends. Obviously, for Kernel updates you'll need to reboot. If it's something like Apache/PHP all it takes is a restart of the particular service.

I think you're a little out of date there. Most updates to IIS 6.0 (WinServer 2003) don't require a reboot of the system. Most don't even require a restart of IIS itself.

#5.8 neonerd on 21 Jun 2004 - 01:08

Most security patches it does, also all kernal updates need a reboot.

#5.9 tapo on 21 Jun 2004 - 01:33

I do update it frequently. It's a debian stable system, and I get updates from security.debian.org. After apt-get updating, dpkg stops the program if it's in use, replaces it with the new one, starts it again so I never require a reboot. Apache, proftpd, etc. only go down for a second or two.

Here's how it works. (Notice how there are updates to the security packages, but none for my system.)

firebird:/home/ted# apt-get update
Hit http://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Packages
Hit http://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Release
Hit http://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Sources
Hit http://ftp.us.debian.org stable/main Release
Get:1 http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Packages [189kB]
Get:2 http://security.debian.org stable/updates/main Release [110B]
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done

firebird:/home/ted# apt-get upgrade
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
0 packages upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 0 not upgraded.

By the way, this is my kernel version: Linux firebird 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST 2002 i586

There are probably local holes, but I don't really care, nobody has access to the system but me.

#5.10 eris on 21 Jun 2004 - 07:09

tapo: In debian stable security patches are back ported to a certain kernel version. So having an old version does not mean having a vulnerable system.

FreeBSD is popular however has not gotton that much media attention. high uptimes, very reliable... check out netcraft.

Just like net or open bsd, free bsd requires the user to first read the documentation.

And after that, it is actually quite easy to use.

#6 amdme2600 on 20 Jun 2004 - 23:31

I work at the Canandaigua wine and no linux or mac all windows servers.

#7 g33kb0y on 21 Jun 2004 - 00:22

I work in higher education. To date, the split of our servers are as follows: 60% Windows. 30% Linux. 9% Unix. 1% Mac-based. However, if you break it down in terms of mission-critical servers: 50% Unix. 24.5% Windows. 24.5% Linux. 1% Mac-based.

#8 Intelman on 21 Jun 2004 - 00:25

Well, I am particularly glad we didn't get stupid messages like "Windows Sucks"...glad to see people were mature about this. A question, how many servers run Windows today?

#9 chronikdork on 21 Jun 2004 - 01:10

I use primarily Linux servers for personal tasks. I know that I will use them for years to come. Windows just doesn't seem to fit my needs. Personally, it is too expensive also.

(1 reply) #10 STV on 21 Jun 2004 - 01:15

i sent this thing in for news several days ago, why wasnt it picked up? lol

STV

#10.1 Mav Phoenix on 21 Jun 2004 - 03:15

Eh, it tends to happen.

#11 UKer on 21 Jun 2004 - 10:42

Not forgetting that a lot more websites are run on Linux systems (per machine, on average - I'm not saying server 2k3 can't run loads), hence they have a much larger share in the number of sites hosted on the os (across the net) than the server shipments suggest.

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Neowin.net