Microsoft Found Guilty of False Advertising in the U.K.

[dmcowen674]

8-25-2004 Microsoft slammed over misleading Windows Linux claims

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 people who complained challenged whether such a comparison was misleading, because the operating systems were run on different hardware.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.

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."

 

[dmcowen674]

Wow, Microsoft is slipping. They know full well they shoud've done this in the U.S. because they would've gotten away with it because they own a large portion of the U.S. Government.

They must've thought they owned enough of the U.K. Government too but apparently not.


Way To Go U.K. folks :thumbsup:

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, Microsoft is slipping. They know full well they shoud've done this in the U.S. because they would've gotten away with it because they own a large portion of the U.S. Government.

They must've thought they owned enough of the U.K. Government too but apparently not.


Way To Go U.K. folks :thumbsup:

man, please put down the crack pipe....

Did the article mention the differences in hardware? I am assuming so given your cited text. Also how fair of a comparison would it have been if the systems were run on identical hardware?

Also, replying to your own post dave? can't you just edit.

 

[sandorski]

ROFL, what a bunch of Tools!

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROFL, what a bunch of Tools!

I wish I could be as big of "tools" as they are....I am sure whatever they have to pay in penalties is equivalent to what bill gates wipes his ass with every day.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, Microsoft is slipping. They know full well they shoud've done this in the U.S. because they would've gotten away with it because they own a large portion of the U.S. Government.

They must've thought they owned enough of the U.K. Government too but apparently not.


Way To Go U.K. folks :thumbsup:

man, please put down the crack pipe....

Did the article mention the differences in hardware? I am assuming so given your cited text. Also how fair of a comparison would it have been if the systems were run on identical hardware?

Also, replying to your own post dave? can't you just edit.

Bozak, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Why not compare the OS on the same hardware? That to me is the only fair thing that could have been done.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Wow, Microsoft is slipping. They know full well they shoud've done this in the U.S. because they would've gotten away with it because they own a large portion of the U.S. Government.

They must've thought they owned enough of the U.K. Government too but apparently not.


Way To Go U.K. folks :thumbsup:

man, please put down the crack pipe....

Did the article mention the differences in hardware? I am assuming so given your cited text. Also how fair of a comparison would it have been if the systems were run on identical hardware?

Also, replying to your own post dave? can't you just edit.

Yeah, tell us bozack, how fair of a comparison would it be if the systems were run on identical hardware?

You seem to be insinuating something here and i am dying to know why you wouldn't consider identical hardware the best platform for comparing two systems when it comes to price.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROFL, what a bunch of Tools!

I wish I could be as big of "tools" as they are....I am sure whatever they have to pay in penalties is equivalent to what bill gates wipes his ass with every day.

Is that what it comes down to? Your admiration for Bill Gates makes it ok?

I'd say they are tools and obviously scared, or do you have any excuse for doing something as stupid as that?

They didn't think anyone was going to notice? Well, THAT was certainly stupid of them, wasn't it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: sandorski
ROFL, what a bunch of Tools!

I wish I could be as big of "tools" as they are....I am sure whatever they have to pay in penalties is equivalent to what bill gates wipes his ass with every day.

If Bill Gates wipes his Ass with Cash, I suggest we tap into his sewage line!!

 

[Czar]

we have one of those at work, two actualy, one an older version and the other one only 1 year old or so

comparing those monsters to a normal xeon machine is like comparing a vw polo to a mercades mclaren f1

 

[Harvey]

I think the most misleading statement from the Borg of Redmond is, "Microsoft Works." :wine:

 

[Klixxer]

Bump for bozack and great one Harvey. LOL

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: Czar
we have one of those at work, two actualy, one an older version and the other one only 1 year old or so

comparing those monsters to a normal xeon machine is like comparing a vw polo to a mercades mclaren f1

Yeah, i would like to see a performance comparison under load.

I assume Redhat or IBM could make a similar performance test under heavy load and it would make the Windows machines to hang twice and then not being fast enough to finish before the test needs to be published.