nz.comp

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by steve, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about Linux and a related cost
    comparison to Windows.....and by no less than the UK Advertising Standards
    Authority (ASA.

    They compared Windows on a comparatively cheap PC (Xeon-based) server to
    Linux on a comparatively expensive IBM z900 mainframe.

    Their sock-puppets, Gartner, had validated the cost case.

    How embarassing!

    That's like Arthur Anderson validating Enron's shonky books.....despite
    obvious problems.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18067

    Extract (partial):

    Microsoft slammed over misleading Windows Linux claims


    Compared a mainframe to a dual 900MHz Xeon kit

    By INQUIRER staff: Wednesday 25 August 2004, 08:24


    THE UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld a series of public
    complaints over an advert in a magazine comparing the cost of Linux versus
    Microsoft Windows.

    An advert it ran compared the two operating systems to each other, but
    Windows was running on a measly dual 900MHz Xeon configuration, while
    Linux was running on a z900 IBM mainframe.


    The advert appeared in an IT magazine and was headed: "Weighing the cost
    of Linux vs Windows? Let's review the facts".


    The ad contained a graph comparing the cost in US dollars between a Linux
    images running on two z900 mainframe CPUs and a Windows Server 2003 image
    running two 900MHz Intel Xeons chips.


    The ad claimed: "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than
    Windows? Servers". It said that "in a recent study audited by leading
    independent research analyst Meta Group, measured costs of Linux running
    on IBM's z900 mainframe for Windows-comparable functions of file serving
    and Web serving. The results showed that IBM z900 mainframe running Linux
    is much less capable and vastly more expensive than Windows Server 2003
    as a platform for server consolidation.*"


    The ASA said the asterisk linked to a footnote that said: "Results may
    vary outside the United States". The people who complained challenged
    whether such a comparison was misleading, because the operating systems
    were run on different hardware.


    In its adjudication, the ASA upheld the complaints. While the ASA said
    the advertisers wanted to compare how competing file set ups were audited
    by Meta, it took expert advice. The IBM z900 running Linux was 10 times
    more expensive than running the Windows OS. It would have been possible
    to compare the two OSes on similar hardware.


    And the ASA ruled readers would infer the ad compared Linux and Windows
    OSes only.


    The ASA said: "Because the comparison included the hardware, as well as
    the operating system and therefore did not show that running a Linux
    operating system was ten times more expensive than running a Windows
    operating system, the Authority concluded that the advertisement was
    misleading."
     
    steve, Aug 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <> in nz.comp
    on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:41:16 +1200, steve <>
    says...
    > Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about Linux and a related cost
    > comparison to Windows.....and by no less than the UK Advertising Standards
    > Authority (ASA.
    >
    > They compared Windows on a comparatively cheap PC (Xeon-based) server to
    > Linux on a comparatively expensive IBM z900 mainframe.
    >
    > Their sock-puppets, Gartner, had validated the cost case.
    >
    > How embarassing!


    Why?

    The hardware was mentioned in the advert - they didn't try to hide it.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    Nigel Guest

    On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:35:43 +1200, Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > In article <> in nz.comp
    > on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:41:16 +1200, steve <>
    > says...
    >> Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about Linux and a related
    >> cost comparison to Windows.....and by no less than the UK Advertising
    >> Standards Authority (ASA.
    >>
    >> They compared Windows on a comparatively cheap PC (Xeon-based) server to
    >> Linux on a comparatively expensive IBM z900 mainframe.
    >>
    >> Their sock-puppets, Gartner, had validated the cost case.
    >>
    >> How embarassing!

    >
    > Why?
    >
    > The hardware was mentioned in the advert - they didn't try to hide it.


    They also didn't compare apples with apples, comparing the Unisys Main
    Frame would have been a more accurate comparison, or linux on equivalent
    hardware.

    Nigel
     
    Nigel, Aug 26, 2004
    #3
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. SynDR0m3

    my next comp

    SynDR0m3, Jul 15, 2005, in forum: Hardware
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,909
    unholy
    Jul 19, 2005
  2. Jack

    Re: USB adaptor works but my comp keeps freezing

    Jack, Aug 31, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    512
  3. .
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    786
  4. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    684
    Elisabeth Himmer
    Apr 28, 2007
  5. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    490
    ThePsyko
    Apr 25, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page