Martin Taylor, Microsoft platform strategist, is undaunted and unbowed.

On Tuesday, Taylor and his team released the findings of yet another study commissioned by Microsoft that is intended to help the company in its fight against Linux and open-source software. This time, the study – designed to compare the deployment time required by Microsoft Windows Small Business Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Linux Enterprise Server 2.1 – was performed by long-time Microsoft certification and test partner Veritest. Not surprisingly, Microsoft triumphs in the October report.

See the Veritest Linux vs. Windows Deployment Study Here

What is surprising is Microsoft's timing in deciding to go public with the Veritest results. At the end of last week, Forrester Research, a Cambridge, Mass.-based market researcher, issued a statement expressing regret for its decision to allow Microsoft to publicize the results of a .Net/Windows vs. J2EE/Unix study that the researcher performed under contract with Microsoft.

Read More on the Microsoft-Backed Forrester Study Here

And on Martin Taylor, Microsoft's Linux Point Man

"Recently, in two isolated and unrelated cases, we conducted privately sponsored studies for two vendor clients. We stand by the integrity of both studies. However, we erred in allowing those clients to publicize the research findings," reads the Forrester statement published on its Web site. Consequently, "the company will no longer accept projects that involve paid-for, publicized product comparisons."

Read the Full Forrester Statement Here

Taylor says that despite Forrester's decision, he plans to continue to make good on his strategy to provide more research and statistics to help customers evaluate Windows vs. the competition.

"Forrester made a business decision on their part," Taylor says. "But they might be surprised that customers want these facts. I have not heard one customer saying, 'please don't use this.'"

Taylor says he is well aware that it could become increasingly difficult for Microsoft to find third-party research organizations willing to be linked to the kind of studies Microsoft is interested in funding.

"We think it'll be a bit more challenging to find ways to share the fact with the customers," Taylor says. "But, we think over time, the religious fervor over Windows vs. Linux will decrease, and hopefully, then, firms will do these kinds of studies on their own."

In the latest Veritest study, Windows Small Business Server 2003, which Microsoft is launching officially on Thursday, was found to require substantially less time and fewer steps to deploy certain audited tasks in a full-installation scenario, vis-à-vis Red Hat Enterprise Server 2.1.

Veritest also found Windows Server 2003 and Red Hat Enterprise Server 2.1 both achieved the same levels of up-time over a 61 day period. The same study found that Windows was easier to set up and recover.

In addition to the new Veritest study and the aforementioned Forrester report, Microsoft also funded earlier this year another Veritest study which measured Windows Server 2003 vs. Red Hat Linux 7.2 reliability. (The two were found equal, although Windows was proclaimed easier to administer and recover.)

See the Results of the April Veritest Study Here

Microsoft also commissioned a study earlier this summer on WebSphere vs. .Net security, which was performed by @stake. Microsoft's .Net was proclaimed the winner in that contest. And late last year, International Data Corp.-performed total-cost-of-ownership (TCO) study, which examined Windows vs. Linux. IDC found that Windows beat Linux in four of five categories in that report.