Summary: The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) and the likes of it may wish to hear about Microsoft's practices

THE last time we mentioned Microsoft's paid-for "TCO" studies was here or here (references therein). With Comes vs Microsoft exhibits out in the open, it is no longer secret that Microsoft is behind the so-called "TCO", which is FUD. It's designed to put down GNU/Linux and it is paid for by Microsoft, which also corrupted analysts at IDC in order to mask the source of funding. It was interesting to find this old anti-GNU/Linux rave in Microsoft's Web site. It says:

PressPass: If Microsoft commissioned this report, how valid are the results for the IT community?

Houston: Microsoft asked IDC to run a careful, detailed and objective analysis of TCO comparisons between Linux and Windows 2000 across common IT workloads. The emphasis was on IDC to deliver independent, critical results for both operating systems. We can't speak for IDC; however, they have been very up front about the thorough, platform-neutral approach and overall research methodology they used to achieve their end results. We're confident that this study is an objective look, with tangible results reflective of real IT conditions today, and we're eager for others to take a critical look and prove the results for themselves.

What Microsoft refuses to say is that IDC's tests came out in favour of GNU/Linux, despite being funded by Microsoft. This never prevented Microsoft from tweaking, spinning or retrying things until they got some desirable results. For those who believe that Microsoft never got caught for it, here is an old report from the BBC.

Microsoft's Linux ad 'misleading'

Microsoft has been reprimanded over misleading advertising by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

The ASA has more extensive history than that when it comes to handling Microsoft. What remains to be reported to the ASA is Microsoft's existing benchmark frauds and payments to OEMs/shops so that they pretend to recommend Windows. For those who lives outside the UK, there are analogous agencies that deal with deceptive marketing. It's time to end these shameless lies from Microsoft because they definitely harm all consumers by deliberately misinforming. ⬆

"Microsoft did sponsor the benchmark testing and the NT server was better tuned than the Linux one. Having said that, I must say that I still trust the Windows NT server would have outperformed the Linux one."

--Windows platform manager, Microsoft South Africa
Reference: Outrage at Microsoft’s independent, yet sponsored NT 4.0/Linux research