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 ad claimed: "Linux was found to be over 10 times more expensive than Windows? Servers". It said that "in a recent study audited by leading independent research analyst Meta Group, measured costs of Linux running on IBM's z900 mainframe 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.*"
The ASA said the asterisk linked to a footnote that said: "Results may vary outside the United States". The people who complained challenged whether such a comparison was misleading, because the operating systems were run on different hardware.
In its adjudication, the ASA upheld the complaints. While the ASA said the advertisers wanted to compare how competing file set ups were audited by Meta, it took expert advice. 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.
And the ASA ruled readers would infer the ad compared Linux and Windows OSes only.
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." µ
