Migrating to Open Source 90% Less than Upgrading Microsoft

Migrating to Open Source 90% Less than Upgrading Microsoft
To tide us over until that more comprehensive analysis is undertaken, we have found a recently released independent study by the Dutch government. In that report10, the researchers found that migrating to an open source desktop productivity platform was 90% less expensive than migrating to the new version of the Microsoft productivity platform.
This included accounting for all the costs of migration, such as retraining,
redevelopment of macros and addon applications, any conversion costs for existing documents etc. As this is only a single data point, it would be impossible to rely on the results as a template for all Microsofttoopen source migrations. However, it is independent research, undertaken by a public sector organisation which has no vested interest in either Microsoft's nor Linux's position in this matter. This research was also based on a large scale migration, involving over 2000 desktops. Certainly within the realm of organisational size we are considering in this TCO, There is another important point to consider when modelling your organisation's cost of upgrading to a newer version of Microsoft products versus the cost of migrating to Linux and open source. Most rganisations will likely factor in the costs associated with a single upgradeversusmigration cycle. By this we mean an organisation calculating the cost of upgrading to the next version of the Microsoft product versus migrating to Linux, rather than including the subsequent upgrades as well.
Many of the costs of upgrading to newer versions of Microsoft platforms (licences,
software assurance etc.) have to be borne again and again. Most of the costs of migrating to Linux are borne once, during the initial migration. Any subsequent upgrades for that Linux platform occur with no licence costs nor software assurance costs. Therefore, to provide a more realistic appraisal and model of this scenario, you should include two or three full refresh lifecycles, stretching over a period of 510 years. Therefore rather than an upgrade versus migration, you contrast costs of an upgradeupgradeupgrade versus migrationupgradeupgrade
process.