The better option, to me, sounds like to use Linux, which you can set up today on a honkin machine if you so choose. At every level tested, the Linux solution is cheaper and more stable than the MS solution. There's no reason to assume this will change, especially since Linux has proven to scale better than Windows at lower levels.
Would you rather be married to Microsoft or Oracle?
That's easy, the Oracle/Linux approach. With SQLServer/IIS/Windows you're locked into a single vendor for all products, and that vendor is known for stability problems. And expect to be forced into an upgrade path -- .NET -- that will lock you in even tighter to that single vendor. The one SQLServer db I have to deal with creates 80% of our DB problems.
With Oracle/Linux, you have a wide variety of choices of Linux vendors, a wide variety of web server choices, and Oracle is perhaps the most stable big DB around. The solution is more scalable without a doubt.
The single biggest thing to avoid as a businessperson is 'single vendor lockin'. Because then that vendor owns YOU. You're at the mercy of a single corporate entity. For example, if they decide the next version of their product -- like Longhorn -- isn't going to be backward compatible and you have to pay for all new copies of the same software, you don't have much choice.
I've developed a couple of database Web sites that use forum presentation/search functions similar to FR, including pcaob.com (covering the new CPA professional oversight requirements), and karlnagel.com, my business consulting firm's website.
Each of the sites are hosted on a Linux/Apache server running MySQL and PHP. The cost is $10/mo for acccess to all the development tools, capped at 4 gigs/mo ie 100,000 page requests/mo x 40k/page. (Each additional 5 gigs is another $10/mo.)
The sites work fantastic. PHP is an excellent scripting language, and has numerous built in functions for PostGres & MySQL. I followed some of the style guidelines that JR established here to give the sites a really nice look & feel.
Everytime I review the activity logs, there are always a number of failed requests. When I checked with my Web host, he mentiond that they were MS .exe hack/virus scripts and led me through the details of the failure report. I don't even want to think about what could happen if these sites were running on an IIS/SQL system, much less the hosting & development costs.
I've developed simple financial apps in VB, and use Office/W2000 as my development platform for my PHP scripts (just using WordPad), so I'm not particularly religious about MS vs. *Nix. It's just for Net development activities, I can't see how MS can compete in the long-run with smaller companies (99% of all businesses) that elect to go with open-source.
MS has replaced IBM in the old adage of 'no one ever got fired for ..." in larger firms. If I was in charge of IT in a company with even more than 25 employees, I'd probably recommend just going with MS, especially if I didn't have a financial interest. In the long run, it's better to keep one's job than to be taking all sorts of technical risks.
But if I was involved with smaller businesses, or had a personal financial stake (as I do in my case), I would never just throw my money away at MS. *Nix is eating up this market, and savvy consultants selling into small businesses know it.