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.
Is this a US or Australian news article?