MS licensing... WTF - Microsoft Windows

This is a discussion on MS licensing... WTF - Microsoft Windows ; Hello, I just contacted MS to verify some questions I had about their software licensing. From what I learned, here's a very true to life scenario: A start-up company on July 2001 installs 10 servers plus 300 workstations. Each will ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: MS licensing... WTF

  1. MS licensing... WTF

    Hello,

    I just contacted MS to verify some questions I had about their
    software licensing. From what I learned, here's a very true to life
    scenario:

    A start-up company on July 2001 installs 10 servers plus 300
    workstations. Each will run the latest MS OS plus all workstations
    need MS Office. They have 10 VB developers that create a company-wide
    application built with an MS SQL 2000 datamart. The company will use
    Sharepoint Portal for document management, plus 100 of the employees
    travel part-time and dial-in from their personal home computers (not
    purchased by company) and remote in via Terminal Services.

    Below are the licenses needed:

    10 x Windows 2000 Server Licenses
    2 x MS SQL 2000 Server Licenses (given we have 2 SQL servers)
    1 x MS Exchange 2000 Server License
    1 x Sharepoint Portal Server License
    300 x Windows 2000 Pro Licenses
    300 x Office 2000 Pro Licenses
    10 x Visual Basic (or Studio) Licenses
    300 x MS Exchange 2000 CAL's
    400 x Windows 2000 Server CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    400 x MS SQL 2000 CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    400 x Sharepoint Portal CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    100 x Terminal Server CAL's (for dial-up folks)

    Whoa... lots of software. Okay, July 2004 comes around, 3 years
    later, the company decides to upgrade 3 servers to Windows 2003 Server
    plus upgrade all workstations to MS Office XP. Here's what needs to
    be purchased now:

    3 x Windows 2003 Server Upgrade License
    400 x Windows 2003 Server CAL's (all systems require the latest MS
    Server CAL)
    300 x Office XP Pro Upgrade Licenses

    Hmmm... that's how many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on MS
    Software alone??? I remember when the HARDWARE was the most expensive
    part of a computer or server. Makes me wonder how MS can say
    companies get out cheaper by using Microsoft products over Linux.

    Also, for those that wish to debate the information above, I was on
    the phone with a MS Licensing person for 30 minutes going over this,
    and they verified everything here is correct. I didn't even realize
    that RAS users needed a Server CAL. No wonder ISP's don't use MS
    Windows Server for dial-up servers.

    Later,

    Alex.

  2. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    On 18 Sep 2003 13:01:06 -0700, alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote:


    >Hmmm... that's how many hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on MS
    >Software alone??? I remember when the HARDWARE was the most expensive
    >part of a computer or server. Makes me wonder how MS can say
    >companies get out cheaper by using Microsoft products over Linux.
    >

    It seems you can save a bomb on licences even if you wanted to keep MS
    products on desktops. A Linux server can even handle Exchange.


  3. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    In article, alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote:

    > Below are the licenses needed:
    >
    > 10 x Windows 2000 Server Licenses
    > 2 x MS SQL 2000 Server Licenses (given we have 2 SQL servers)
    > 1 x MS Exchange 2000 Server License
    > 1 x Sharepoint Portal Server License
    > 300 x Windows 2000 Pro Licenses
    > 300 x Office 2000 Pro Licenses
    > 10 x Visual Basic (or Studio) Licenses
    > 300 x MS Exchange 2000 CAL's
    > 400 x Windows 2000 Server CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > 400 x MS SQL 2000 CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > 400 x Sharepoint Portal CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > 100 x Terminal Server CAL's (for dial-up folks)


    You should just switch over to OSX Server... most all of that can be
    handled for $999. For that price there is no limits on clients and you
    can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and you
    have your 10 Servers.

    http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/

    http://www.apple.com/server/

    http://www.apple.com/xserve/

    http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/

    Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.

  4. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    "Marcus Cato" wrote in message
    news:quaestor-73D93A.20454618092003@typhoon3.uswest.net...
    > In article, alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote:
    >
    > > Below are the licenses needed:
    > >
    > > 10 x Windows 2000 Server Licenses
    > > 2 x MS SQL 2000 Server Licenses (given we have 2 SQL servers)
    > > 1 x MS Exchange 2000 Server License
    > > 1 x Sharepoint Portal Server License
    > > 300 x Windows 2000 Pro Licenses
    > > 300 x Office 2000 Pro Licenses
    > > 10 x Visual Basic (or Studio) Licenses
    > > 300 x MS Exchange 2000 CAL's
    > > 400 x Windows 2000 Server CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 400 x MS SQL 2000 CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 400 x Sharepoint Portal CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 100 x Terminal Server CAL's (for dial-up folks)

    >
    > You should just switch over to OSX Server... most all of that can be
    > handled for $999. For that price there is no limits on clients and you
    > can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and you
    > have your 10 Servers.
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/


    Excellent alternative.

    >
    > Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.


    Agreed.

    --

    x = 5; // this increments x by 5

    "Your honor, here we see a piece of code that was copied verbatim from our
    copyrighted source, including the comment ..."



  5. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    In <9htluqikznfg.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Under License 6 you'd probably pay about $60,000 for all client licenses,
    > and about $20,000 for the server licenses. Over 3 years that would be
    > about $240,000 for 10 servers and 400 seats. That's roughly what you'd pay
    > if you bought at retail, and then have to pay again to upgrade.


    That's $8,000 per employee for three years -- the usual
    usual hardware replacement cycle. So we're talking about
    $800 hardware and $8000 software per employee per three
    years, or just about $2900/year per employee.

    --
    | Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
    | it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
    | for new products or new versions of existing products." |
    end

  6. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:01:06 -0700, Alex wrote:

    > Also, for those that wish to debate the information above, I was on
    > the phone with a MS Licensing person for 30 minutes going over this,
    > and they verified everything here is correct.



    Should have told them you where going to cut everything over to Linux and
    had Red Hat on the other line! No really you could get rid of quite a
    bit of those licenses with Suse Open Exchange server (acts as
    Exchange/Share Point) and Samba. That drop the price quite a bit and give
    you much better up times.

  7. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    D. C. Sessions wrote:

    > In <9htluqikznfg.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Under License 6 you'd probably pay about $60,000 for all client licenses,
    >>and about $20,000 for the server licenses. Over 3 years that would be
    >>about $240,000 for 10 servers and 400 seats. That's roughly what you'd pay
    >>if you bought at retail, and then have to pay again to upgrade.

    >
    >
    > That's $8,000 per employee for three years -- the usual
    > usual hardware replacement cycle. So we're talking about
    > $800 hardware and $8000 software per employee per three
    > years, or just about $2900/year per employee.


    Your math is way off.

    Where do you get $8,000? $240,000 over 3 years / 400 seats is $600 per
    seat, and in reality it would be less than that because I based my
    calculations on 400 full seats, where 100 of those seats would just be
    terminal services clients.

    Further, if you're running Windows 2000 or XP on the client you don't
    have to pay for terminal service CAL's since MS waives the CAL
    requirement in this situation (They don't with Windows 2003 though).



  8. Re: MS licensing... WTF


    "Marcus Cato" wrote in message
    news:quaestor-73D93A.20454618092003@typhoon3.uswest.net...
    > In article, alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote:
    >
    > > Below are the licenses needed:
    > >
    > > 10 x Windows 2000 Server Licenses
    > > 2 x MS SQL 2000 Server Licenses (given we have 2 SQL servers)
    > > 1 x MS Exchange 2000 Server License
    > > 1 x Sharepoint Portal Server License
    > > 300 x Windows 2000 Pro Licenses
    > > 300 x Office 2000 Pro Licenses
    > > 10 x Visual Basic (or Studio) Licenses
    > > 300 x MS Exchange 2000 CAL's
    > > 400 x Windows 2000 Server CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 400 x MS SQL 2000 CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 400 x Sharepoint Portal CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    > > 100 x Terminal Server CAL's (for dial-up folks)

    >
    > You should just switch over to OSX Server... most all of that can be
    > handled for $999. For that price there is no limits on clients and you


    OS X Server includes a database, something like Sharepoint, Windows terminal
    services, BV and Exchange functionality?

    Sure about that?

    > can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and you
    > have your 10 Servers.
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
    >
    > Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.


    Going with Apple makes as much since. Try Linux instead. Same services, no
    $2000 fee.

    JCS



  9. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    In article "James Stutts" wrote:

    > OS X Server includes a database, something like Sharepoint, Windows terminal
    > services, BV and Exchange functionality?
    >
    > Sure about that?


    Yes, WebObjects comes with OSX Server, the support for Exchange is there
    plus a host of other items. http://www.apple.com/webobjects/

    > > can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and you
    > > have your 10 Servers.
    > >
    > > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
    > >
    > > http://www.apple.com/server/
    > >
    > > http://www.apple.com/xserve/
    > >
    > > http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
    > >
    > > Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.

    >
    > Going with Apple makes as much since. Try Linux instead. Same services, no
    > $2000 fee.


    Yeah, but Linux is a pain to deal with --- That $2000 is saved quickly
    enough by the enormous effort Apple put into the administration side of
    it, it's pretty slick stuff, night and day better than Windows Server
    2003.

    http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/specs.html

  10. Re: MS licensing... WTF


    "Marcus Cato" wrote in message
    news:quaestor-CD8EE4.23435918092003@typhoon3.uswest.net...
    > In article "James Stutts" wrote:
    >
    > > OS X Server includes a database, something like Sharepoint, Windows

    terminal
    > > services, BV and Exchange functionality?
    > >
    > > Sure about that?

    >
    > Yes, WebObjects comes with OSX Server, the support for Exchange is there
    > plus a host of other items. http://www.apple.com/webobjects/


    I didn't see the word "exchange" there anywhere.

    >
    > > > can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and

    you
    > > > have your 10 Servers.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
    > > >
    > > > http://www.apple.com/server/
    > > >
    > > > http://www.apple.com/xserve/
    > > >
    > > > http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
    > > >
    > > > Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.

    > >
    > > Going with Apple makes as much since. Try Linux instead. Same

    services, no
    > > $2000 fee.

    >
    > Yeah, but Linux is a pain to deal with --- That $2000 is saved quickly


    Not really.

    > enough by the enormous effort Apple put into the administration side of
    > it, it's pretty slick stuff, night and day better than Windows Server
    > 2003.


    You've used 2003?

    JCS



  11. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    As Marcus Cato so eloquently gibbered on Fri, 19 Sep 2003 at 02:45 GMT:

    > In article, alex@totallynerd.com (Alex) wrote:
    >
    >> Below are the licenses needed:
    >>
    >> 10 x Windows 2000 Server Licenses
    >> 2 x MS SQL 2000 Server Licenses (given we have 2 SQL servers)
    >> 1 x MS Exchange 2000 Server License
    >> 1 x Sharepoint Portal Server License
    >> 300 x Windows 2000 Pro Licenses
    >> 300 x Office 2000 Pro Licenses
    >> 10 x Visual Basic (or Studio) Licenses
    >> 300 x MS Exchange 2000 CAL's
    >> 400 x Windows 2000 Server CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    >> 400 x MS SQL 2000 CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    >> 400 x Sharepoint Portal CAL's (300 local PC's and 100 via RAS)
    >> 100 x Terminal Server CAL's (for dial-up folks)

    >
    > You should just switch over to OSX Server... most all of that can be
    > handled for $999. For that price there is no limits on clients and you
    > can spread services across 5 machines. Spring for an extra $999 and you
    > have your 10 Servers.
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/server/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/
    >
    > http://www.apple.com/xserve/raid/
    >
    > Going with MS at this point doesn't make much sense.


    Since when is "any" spelled M-U-C-H?

    --
    Microsoft is not the answer. Microsoft is the question. The answer is NO!

  12. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:44 -0500, "James Stutts" wrote:
    > Going with Apple makes as much s[e]n[s]e. Try Linux instead. Same services, no
    > $2000 fee.


    But then, OSX is very pretty. MS and Linux aren't anywhere as pretty. Staring all day
    long at some ugly ****? No way. So, I say, go with Apple.

    >
    > JCS
    >
    >





  13. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    Freeride wrote in message news:...
    > On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 13:01:06 -0700, Alex wrote:
    >
    > > Also, for those that wish to debate the information above, I was on
    > > the phone with a MS Licensing person for 30 minutes going over this,
    > > and they verified everything here is correct.

    >
    >
    > Should have told them you where going to cut everything over to Linux and
    > had Red Hat on the other line! No really you could get rid of quite a
    > bit of those licenses with Suse Open Exchange server (acts as
    > Exchange/Share Point) and Samba. That drop the price quite a bit and give
    > you much better up times.


    Thanks to everyone that took the time to reply, and to whoever added
    me to the Microsoft Update email virus (I've received 500+ messages in
    the last 12 hours). But nothing a filter in Evolution won't handle,
    plus since I'm running Linux, no affect on me either way

    Anyway, what prompted my initial post was a call I made to Microsoft
    licensing to get some answers related to a project I was working on.
    It still suprises me that Microsoft does not use Concurrent licensing
    like others (Citrix, Novell, etc). This would make their product more
    reasonably priced and easier for smaller companies to afford.

    The scenario I wrote-up shows the required licenses for one scenario,
    and though there are many ways to purchase the licenses, these are the
    required licenses for such a setup.

    Going with non-Windows servers would definately save on CAL's, which
    is what I generally suggest in such a scenario. It still amazes me
    how folks still get eaten-up by CAL's now'days, even though there are
    SO many other options out there.

    But that's just my opinion.

    Alex.

  14. Re: MS licensing... WTF

    In <1104_1063957791@news.netcarrier.net>, red-dwarf wrote:

    > But then, OSX is very pretty. MS and Linux aren't anywhere as pretty. Staring all day
    > long at some ugly ****? No way. So, I say, go with Apple.


    If I want to stare at pretty, a computer is
    not on my top ten list.

    --
    | Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
    | it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
    | for new products or new versions of existing products." |
    end

  15. Re: MS licensing... WTF


    "red-dwarf" wrote in message
    news:1104_1063957791@news.netcarrier.net...
    > On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:31:44 -0500, "James Stutts"

    wrote:
    > > Going with Apple makes as much s[e]n[s]e. Try Linux instead. Same

    services, no
    > > $2000 fee.

    >
    > But then, OSX is very pretty. MS and Linux aren't anywhere as pretty.

    Staring all day
    > long at some ugly ****? No way. So, I say, go with Apple.


    I'm assuming you're being sarcastic, but if not:

    1) who cares about "pretty" on a headless server?
    2) not everyone considers OS X "pretty".

    JCS



+ Reply to Thread