By Jo Best, 25 August 2004 14:15
NEWS Microsoft recently launched a 'Get the Facts' ad campaign telling consumers Linux isn't cheaper than Windows. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) thinks they should get the facts too - but it's warned Microsoft to make sure its are straight first.
A print ad from Microsoft which bore the headline "Weighing the cost of Linux vs.Windows? Let's review the facts" offered a comparison between a Windows and a Linux machine which, according to Redmond, demonstrated that "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows Server 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."
Microsoft claimed the study was as like-for-like as it could be between the machines - a Linux image on IBM's z900 mainframe CPUs and a Windows Server 2003 image running on two 900MHz Xeon CPUs - and wasn't hardware specific.
The ASA, however, thought the choice of hardware could have been more appropriate, saying in its adjudication: "The Authority understood... that the measurements for Linux were performed on an IBM zSeries, which was more expensive and did not perform as well as other IBM Series."
The ASA also thought consumers might be misled by headline's Windows vs Linux stance, encouraging them into thinking running Microsoft's OS - not the "competing file serving set-ups" - was cheaper than running one based on Linux.
The result being, according to the ASA, that consumers could be misled. The Authority asked Microsoft to amend its ads and suggested in future the software behemoth might want to have a word with the Committee of Advertising Practices' Copy Advice Team.
Comments
There are 22 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Windows sucks balls at serving everything but the BSOD.
2. anonymous
Every anti-Microsoft, Linux-using sys admin or manager I have met is a jerk. Anyone else have this experience?
3. Brian Foster
This has got to be one of the most evil things I've seen Microsoft do. There really ought to be a 7 or 8 figure fine attached to this.
4. Annoyed
I must have been doing it wrong all these years...
i have my linux server running on a p2 650 with 512 mb ram, and i got the machine for £150 2 years ago.
The cpu never has gone above 50% usage and has never fallen over.
i didn't realise i needed a IBM's z900 mainframe
5. Martin Anderson
It's getting hard to tell who are the biggest spin doctors, government or major corporations. What happend to honesty in business and public life?
6. Goten Xiao
Yes, let's get the facts. You can download Linux along with several hundred applications for zero cost. Or, if you don't want to download, buy a CD for about £5. You can then run Linux on an old machine with little/no problems. 64bit processing comes with a recompilation of the kernel (which can be handled by a KDE app, I forget what it's called).
Now let's compare to Windows. It costs several hundred pounds to buy a copy, and you have access licenses AS WELL as licenses for the OS itself. And you get next to no software with it. Plus, you need a *really* high spec machine so it doesn't:
a) run slower than a 386
b) crash (although it most likely still will)
c) not run applications
Then you have to factor in extra costs if you want to utilise 64bit processing, because oh; look: there's ANOTHER license you need to buy, and another entirely seperate OS.
And as for the "file serving capabilities"... I have yet to see an MS FTP server that supports the resume command. And, ironically, Microsoft's "superior" webserving applications need to be protected because they're insecure. By what? Linux servers.
So, would you *really* want to buy a product where the company that made it has to use the oposition's products?
7. anonymous
Good god, isn't it supprising how the Unix/Linux mob are upset and on the defensive. Use windows - accept the shortfalls and enjoy the Unix/Linux mob crying whenever it gets slated for any reason.
8. The Pyro Monkey
That just goes to show you... when in doubt... blame Microsoft, then go to Linux and take potshots at Windows CDs. Woot.
9. anonymous
TO the person who says that all Linux-using sys admin people are blablablabla: Not at all, actually quite the opposite. I work for a company that uses Linux as a server OS but uses Windows on the desktops. They do not take a nerdy, anti-MS stance for the sake of it, they just reckon that Linux is more secure and more stable but that the Windows interface is friendlier for the ordinary user. I think that's common sense, don't you?
10. Steve Farkas
The only worse ones are the MS loving brain dead types who hate the realists.
11. John Foster
We have recently undertaken extensive tests with Linux and Windows running the same application (a search engine) on identical hardware and Linux outperforms Windows significantly. As a result we will be migrating around 200 servers over the next month. Of course Linux is cheaper (and better). Why else would Microsoft use Linux servers?
12. The Converted
2 years ago I started working for a co-operative. Money was tight, so I opted to try out Linux (SUSE). Before then I was a Microsoft fan.
Now I think that Microsoft could learn a lot from an operating system that has now run for two years without rebooting. Can't remember one Windows server that has ever managed that!
13. Sergio Samayoa
It is clear that Microsoft is loosing market. What he doesnt (or dont want) see is that Windows is excelent Work Station SO (even with its flaws) but not so good for Server. M$ should capitalize its Work Station's market share and focus on it and forget about servers.
14. Brett Wheeler
I work at a primarily MS site, we are still investigating Linux.
Both OSs have thair drawbacks.
The one thing I have noticed is that when you run the two systems on identical hardware, side by side, for a prolonged period the Linux box has far better reliability and speed.
As for the rabid (Anonymous) MS supporters grumbling about picking on Windows, this article is about blatently misleading advertising.
You remind me of the way the Macintosh brigade used to have such feelings of inadequacy that the moment someone mentions the company name you start feeling victimised.
It is an OS not a life choice!
15. anonymous
I work for a large organisation and we decided that Linux or Microsoft were not sufficient for our storage needs and chose NetApp as our filer solution, Linux as our web solution and Microsoft as our desktop solution.
Stop fighting and work together is my advice!
16. Help I'm a Rock
Both windows and Linux have their place depending on function. Being anti-windows has it's place too, as Microsoft's insistence on using proprietry nonsense always halts progress. Attempting to tie people in and monopolise will always lose in the long run. Linux and the associated free software movement can only gain ground faster while this continues.
Innaccurate ad campaigns are not helping!
17. Dave Howe
Comments to comments :)
1. Microsoft sucks...
Not particularly constructive. MS isn't much of a server for pure file-and-print, but is a so-so application server and a so-so file server and... easy to administer.
2. Unix admins are jerks.
Usually, Unix admins are helpful and polite - the first time. its when they have to deal with morons who can't (or won't) read screen messages they start acting like jerks.
3. This is microsoft bashing
Yeah, most of the comments are - or linux bashing of course - but the article is about MS's publicity machine blatently lying in a posted advert - a nono.
4. This is a os choice, not a lifestyle choice
you don't know many mac users do you? :)
18. Orinthal James Simpson
Anti-Microsoft Unix admins aren't necessarily jerks. They are, though, overwhelmingly, a bunch of middle-aged virgins.
Microsoft admins such as myself are attractive, intellilgent, highly sexual beings.
Unix geeks are more often your stereotypical "nerd" and take our their frustrations on the command line.
Don't let your Unix admin fool you into thinking Unix is difficult to administer. He uses a GUI when you aren't looking. He just switches back to the command line while you are watching so you will think his high salary is justified.
19. Andy
Orinthal James Simpson I don't know what unix people you hang out with. But the people that I know, who have switched to Linux are:
- intellectual
- artistic, creative
- intelligent (MCSE's are not)
- sexual
- do sport, keep fit
- are not odd geeks from another planet
Then again, i'm 19, at uni. And pretty much everyone is sexual here. Maybe in 20 years' time they will all become born-again virgins.
Or maybe it's because I'm British. Who knows?
20. Peter Crowther
I use both - so am about to get flamed by both sides :-).
I'm a co-founder and director of a Microsoft Partner, MCSE, MCSD, MCDBA, MCT (don't ask me, I just took the exams) and a DOS user since 3.3; I've also been using Linux since kernel version 1.0.0 in 1994, and UNIX since 1985. I've been sysadmin and co-network admin on a multi-thousand-machine mixed UNIX/Windows/Mac network. We do roughly half of our development work on MS platforms, a hair less than half on independent platforms such as Java, and some Unix- and Linux-specific work.
We find that different clients want different things. Most of the corporates want to be able to standardise on one platform, with a supplier that's got a corporate identity and can be sued. Besides, to mis-quote an old saw, "Nobody ever got sacked for buying Microsoft." Smaller enterprises, and some departments in larger ones, have IT staff who are willing to take on open-source software and managers who will support them on this. Where this happens, the department tends to evaluate alternatives; I've found comparatively few places these days that are anti-MS for the sake of it.
Oh - and the admins of both systems are often the same people. C'mon, folks, stop flaming each other and get on with our joint job of ensuring the users get some work done, the company makes money, and we all get paid at the end of the month ;-).
21. royston
ive got to admit that one of the other posts said..work together......linux for one solution microsoft for another and so on....you pick the best for the jobs you need.......even if you have to mix and match........who cares..the best for you is not the best for someone else.....stop argueing....get rid of all this unfair competition and get on with it.if you havent got the cash for the os you want then tough get the next best instead of bickering like a spoilt children.a bag of sugar cost more in one shop than another ..so what!! microsoft works great as a desktop solution i,m sticking with it cos it works, its as simple as that. i,m not interested in the cost.it works! its doin the job and saveing me money because it works i,m gaining in the longrun because i have a smooth running business thats all that matters to me. jeez your like a load of old women.
22. anonymous
It's clear that MS "get the facts" campaign is directed at the people that sign the checks, but use the computers only casually or not at all. I've read the MS hype and on their website.
What they don't mention:
1 The TOC arguments are based on surveys, not studies. This is an important difference. Studies reflect hard documented numbers, surveys reflect the opinion of the demographic being surveyed. As I understand the MS Web document, The surveys concerning the cost of owner ship were conducted on a group of MS friendly corporate executives who had little or no linux experience, and had been pretty well endocrinated by MS marketing people. For any such comparision to be relevant, TCO must be tracked between installations where the only difference is the software. For an unbiased comparison, all difference in the platforms must be noted.
There are 42 model in the z900 product line. It is my understanding that z/OS (the z900 native OS) can run in parallel with other OSes. We don't know if or how many z/os apps were running concurrently, and what priority was given to the linux software.
Is the "get the facts" campaign misleading? Definitely. But I have no doubt that Microsoft's Army of Lawyers has designed in plenty of plausible deniabilty.