They've been doing stuff like that for a couple years now.
Before they would run benchmarks based on performance and stability to compare linux vs w2k, but after awhile linux more then caught up to w2k in terms of performance. Eventually it became evident that the conclusions of w2k vs linux ended up being: w2k has a slight edge in network thoruogh put in some services, but linux is free, stable, virus free and in all other aspects the OSes neck to neck. Pretty much similar performance on similar hardware.
After that MS began paying for several studies that are ment to show that total cost of ownership is cheaper for Windows then Linux.
What they show is that hardware and personal are the major costs involved. Windows admins job market is saturated compared to Unix admins and so they are cheaper. So if you have the same number of admin, support personal, and commercials for linux network vs windows network that windows saved money. Many due to the difference in administrator costs and the costs of training new admins.
This of course doesn't take in to the fact that Linux is generally easier for a small number of people to administrate effectively compared to windows machines and that Unix gurus are at a higher level of skillfulness compared to their cheaper windows counterpoints. Also that Linux is much more flexible so that instead of having a hundred PC servers in a server farm you can have much more powerfull computers installed from manufactures like IBM with no change in functionality and not have to train your personal to work with a new operating system or database. Same tools different computer. Or you can use clusters of computers to achieve the magic 100.1% aviability if you want that instead. More options and can more effectively tailor the Linux servers for a specific network situation.
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread
