Surprise!! Microsoft lied about Linux

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

  1. steve

    steve Guest

    Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    Windows and Linux.

    The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.

    They found this was misleading.

    "Meta group" are the shonky consultants who "audited" this comparison.

    In ethical terms, this is the IT equivalent of Anderson's giving Enron's
    books a clean bill of health just before it crashed.

    http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=18067
     
    steve, Aug 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <> in nz.comp
    on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +1200, steve <>
    says...
    > Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    > Windows and Linux.
    >
    > The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    > a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    > comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    > Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.
    >
    > They found this was misleading.


    Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    information was actually hidden from the user.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. steve

    Cheetah Guest

    Patrick Dunford wrote:

    > Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    > platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    > information was actually hidden from the user.


    Yes, it made it clear in the fine print, which was stored in a locked filing
    cabinet, in a stall of the ladies lavatories marked with "beware of the
    leopard" in the basement of a condemned building.

    Bottom line is the advert was totally misleading. It looked like Linux was
    more expensive. What is in fact the case is that Linux is only more
    expensive in the most contrived examples - like when you compare running a
    single instance or perhaps two on a large mainframe computer, compared to
    running Windows on a cheap Intel box.

    But then - Linux doesn't exist, so what are we all arguing about?
     
    Cheetah, Aug 27, 2004
    #3
  4. Hi there,

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <> in nz.comp
    > on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +1200, steve <>
    > says...
    >
    >>Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    >>Windows and Linux.
    >>
    >>The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    >>a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    >>comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    >>Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.
    >>
    >>They found this was misleading.

    >
    > Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    > platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    > information was actually hidden from the user.


    The respective operating systems were not really the issue. The hardware
    on which they were installed was. Had M$ installed Windows and Linux on
    two identical servers, then tested them side-by-side, and proved Windows
    to be the winner, THAT would be fair grounds for them to make the advert
    in question. Unfortunately proving that would be impossible for them, as
    anyone with a pass in 'basic intelligence 101' will know that linux will
    be easily more cost effective in a fair comparison...

    Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Canterbury Horse Taxis. http://www.horsetaxis.co.nz/
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...

    "...so what really would the response be to 5000 people with guns
    storming the Beehive to demand a less over-regulated NZ?..."
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Aug 29, 2004
    #4
  5. steve

    Brendan Guest

    On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 20:44:31 +1200, Chris Wilkinson wrote:

    > Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    > up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...


    No, he's just a freelance Idiot.

    --

    .... Brendan

    "Wit is the epitaph of an emotion." -- Friedrich Nietzsche

    Note: All my comments are copyright 29/08/2004 10:10:47 p.m. and are opinion only where not otherwise stated and always "to the best of my recollection". www.computerman.orcon.net.nz.
     
    Brendan, Aug 29, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <> in nz.comp on Sun, 29 Aug
    2004 20:44:31 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <>
    says...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > > In article <> in nz.comp
    > > on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +1200, steve <>
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    > >>Windows and Linux.
    > >>
    > >>The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    > >>a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    > >>comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    > >>Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.
    > >>
    > >>They found this was misleading.

    > >
    > > Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    > > platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    > > information was actually hidden from the user.

    >
    > The respective operating systems were not really the issue. The hardware
    > on which they were installed was. Had M$ installed Windows and Linux on
    > two identical servers, then tested them side-by-side, and proved Windows
    > to be the winner, THAT would be fair grounds for them to make the advert
    > in question. Unfortunately proving that would be impossible for them, as
    > anyone with a pass in 'basic intelligence 101' will know that linux will
    > be easily more cost effective in a fair comparison...
    >
    > Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    > up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...


    Are Linux people paying you to debate against MS in this NG?

    Anyone who uses M$ and Micro$oft shows they are biased.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Aug 29, 2004
    #6
  7. Hi there,

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <> in nz.comp on Sun, 29 Aug
    > 2004 20:44:31 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <>
    > says...
    >
    >>Hi there,
    >>
    >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >>>In article <> in nz.comp
    >>>on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +1200, steve <>
    >>>says...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    >>>>Windows and Linux.
    >>>>
    >>>>The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    >>>>a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    >>>>comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    >>>>Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.
    >>>>
    >>>>They found this was misleading.
    >>>
    >>>Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    >>>platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    >>>information was actually hidden from the user.

    >>
    >>The respective operating systems were not really the issue. The hardware
    >>on which they were installed was. Had M$ installed Windows and Linux on
    >>two identical servers, then tested them side-by-side, and proved Windows
    >>to be the winner, THAT would be fair grounds for them to make the advert
    >>in question. Unfortunately proving that would be impossible for them, as
    >>anyone with a pass in 'basic intelligence 101' will know that linux will
    >>be easily more cost effective in a fair comparison...
    >>
    >>Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    >>up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...

    >
    > Are Linux people paying you to debate against MS in this NG?


    Nope. I don't need money waved under my nose to form my own
    opinions...

    > Anyone who uses M$ and Micro$oft shows they are biased.


    I'm biased towards linux partly because the arguments of
    those who suck up to rampant capitalist organisations such
    as Microsoft, are easily nullified by the plain and simple
    use of common sense...

    Those who deify money at the expense of freedom usually get
    left off my Xmas card list...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Canterbury Horse Taxis. http://www.horsetaxis.co.nz/
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...

    "...so what really would the response be to 5000 people with guns
    storming the Beehive to demand a less over-regulated NZ?..."
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Aug 30, 2004
    #7
  8. In article <> in nz.comp on Mon, 30 Aug
    2004 16:25:40 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <>
    says...
    > Hi there,
    >
    > Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > > In article <> in nz.comp on Sun, 29 Aug
    > > 2004 20:44:31 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <>
    > > says...
    > >
    > >>Hi there,
    > >>
    > >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > >>
    > >>>In article <> in nz.comp
    > >>>on Thu, 26 Aug 2004 12:51:26 +1200, steve <>
    > >>>says...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>Microsoft has been caught red-handed lying about a cost comparison between
    > >>>>Windows and Linux.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>The UK Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld a complaint regarding
    > >>>>a Microsoft comparison of Windows and Linux that did not make it clear the
    > >>>>comparison was between Linux on a dual-processor IBM z900 mainframe and
    > >>>>Windows on an Intel-based dual-Xeon PC server.
    > >>>>
    > >>>>They found this was misleading.
    > >>>
    > >>>Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    > >>>platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    > >>>information was actually hidden from the user.
    > >>
    > >>The respective operating systems were not really the issue. The hardware
    > >>on which they were installed was. Had M$ installed Windows and Linux on
    > >>two identical servers, then tested them side-by-side, and proved Windows
    > >>to be the winner, THAT would be fair grounds for them to make the advert
    > >>in question. Unfortunately proving that would be impossible for them, as
    > >>anyone with a pass in 'basic intelligence 101' will know that linux will
    > >>be easily more cost effective in a fair comparison...
    > >>
    > >>Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    > >>up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...

    > >
    > > Are Linux people paying you to debate against MS in this NG?

    >
    > Nope. I don't need money waved under my nose to form my own
    > opinions...
    >
    > > Anyone who uses M$ and Micro$oft shows they are biased.

    >
    > I'm biased towards linux partly because the arguments of
    > those who suck up to rampant capitalist organisations such
    > as Microsoft, are easily nullified by the plain and simple
    > use of common sense...


    This is a computing newsgroup not a political one.

    The phrases used in the above paragraph show bias.
     
    Patrick Dunford, Sep 1, 2004
    #8
  9. Hi there,

    Patrick Dunford wrote:
    > In article <> in nz.comp on Mon, 30 Aug
    > 2004 16:25:40 +1200, Chris Wilkinson <>
    > says...
    >
    >>Hi there,
    >>
    >>Patrick Dunford wrote:
    >>
    >>>>>Not as much as you'd like to claim. The advertising made it clear which
    >>>>>platforms the respective operating systems were running on, so no
    >>>>>information was actually hidden from the user.


    The only hidden info is that comparing Linux and Windows installed on
    vastly differing hardware is unfair, as the UK standards authority do
    concur...

    >>>>The respective operating systems were not really the issue. The hardware
    >>>>on which they were installed was. Had M$ installed Windows and Linux on
    >>>>two identical servers, then tested them side-by-side, and proved Windows
    >>>>to be the winner, THAT would be fair grounds for them to make the advert
    >>>>in question. Unfortunately proving that would be impossible for them, as
    >>>>anyone with a pass in 'basic intelligence 101' will know that linux will
    >>>>be easily more cost effective in a fair comparison...
    >>>>
    >>>>Are M$ paying you to debate against linux in this NG? You seem to come
    >>>>up with some ridiculous arguments against common sense sometimes...
    >>>
    >>>Are Linux people paying you to debate against MS in this NG?

    >>
    >>Nope. I don't need money waved under my nose to form my own
    >>opinions...
    >>
    >>>Anyone who uses M$ and Micro$oft shows they are biased.

    >>
    >>I'm biased towards linux partly because the arguments of
    >>those who suck up to rampant capitalist organisations such
    >>as Microsoft, are easily nullified by the plain and simple
    >>use of common sense...

    >
    > This is a computing newsgroup not a political one.


    Political? The topic of discussion is still within the bounds
    of 'computing'. Just because it verges between perhaps several
    topics doesn't mean I cannot post it to here...

    > The phrases used in the above paragraph show bias.


    Of course they do, as I stated earlier that I am biased toward
    Linux. No need to reiterate what has already been concluded...

    So to make it a fair comparison of operating costs (Windows vs.
    Linux) do you think it would have been better to have both OS
    installed on identical hardware? Its a common trick of business
    to state half-truths, and in this case Microsoft are stating that
    running linux on expensive hardware is more costly than running
    Windows on a commodity 'box'. I cannot debate that, but what it
    boils down to is that customers may infer from the advert that
    linux costs more to run, which is true in the given situation,
    but not perhaps if the comparison had taken place on identical
    boxen...

    The UK advertising standards authority concur, so your argument
    is moot. Microsoft once again are misleading consumers with poorly
    concealed half-truths in their advertising...

    --
    Kind regards,

    Chris Wilkinson, Christchurch, New Zealand.
    Canterbury Horse Taxis. http://www.horsetaxis.co.nz/
    Remove spamblocker to send replies direct to my email...

    "...so what really would the response be to 5000 people with guns
    storming the Beehive to demand a less over-regulated NZ?..."
     
    Chris Wilkinson, Sep 3, 2004
    #9
    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. JTT

    MCSA Surprise

    JTT, Aug 13, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    543
    RoGuE
    Aug 15, 2003
  2. Mah  -  Dee

    70-227 - surprise...

    Mah - Dee, Sep 2, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    820
    Maestro
    Sep 3, 2003
  3. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    458
    DVD Verdict
    Jun 9, 2005
  4. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    525
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 1, 2005
  5. DVD Verdict
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    582
    DVD Verdict
    Sep 15, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page