backtop


Print 38 comment(s) - last by alcalde.. on Nov 30 at 11:49 PM

BYOD fees for "user CAL" licenses of Sharepoint, Lync, etc. will jump 15 percent

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) has announced a change that's good news for its investors and bottom line, but likely bad news for business clients.

The change affects Microsoft's so-called client-access license (CAL).  If you own a business, you purchase a CAL from Microsoft, which allows your on-site employees to use software such as:
  • Bing Maps Server
  • Core Suite
  • Enterprise Suite
  • Exchange Server Standard or Enterprise
  • Lync Server Standard or Enterprise
  • Project Server
  • SharePoint Server Standard or Enterprise
  • System Center 2012 Client Management Suite
  • System Center Configuration Manager
  • System Center Endpoint Protection
  • Visual Studio TFS
  • Windows Multipoint Server
  • Windows Server
  • Windows Server RDS, RMS, Terminal Services
There are two flavors of CALs -- User CALs, which allow a unique user to connect any device they own, and the Device CALs, which associate a per device license fee.  Previously Microsoft had set these two licensing options to the same price.  
User CALDevice CAL
User CALs (left) are the preferred solution for BYOD users, versus Device CALs (right).

That was great news for enterprise users, as one of the hottest trends right now in IT is the bring-your-own-device (BYOD) craze.  BYOD means that one user may not only connect from both a work machine (say a work laptop), but also personal machines they own (say their personal tablet and laptop).  If a business was to buy a Device CAL license, it'd have to buy three licenses for those devices, but with the User CAL, the employee had the flexibility to use any of those devices, while the employer was on the hook for only a single license fee.

But the deal is about to get a little less sweet, as Microsoft has announced that it will be bumping the price of its various User CALs by 15 percent.  The price change will take affect Dec. 1. However, large customers that have Enterprise Agreements, Enterprise Subscription, Open Value Subscription, and Open Value Perpetual will be able to hang on to their current pricing until the end of their contract.

Ultimately this seems like a smart move for Microsoft.  After all, a 15 percent premium User CAL is still the cheaper option for enterprise customers, if the average user connects with 2 or more devices.  But the move could also backfire, forcing some smaller clients to free, open source alternatives.  However, making such a switch can be costly and the end result may be inferior software, in some cases.  
 
For those reasons it seems unlikely that Microsoft will see mass defections, even if it may be offering up an irritating change to its business clients.

Sources: SoftCat, Microsoft, ZDNet



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Typical
By melgross on 11/27/2012 1:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't really such a great move. While its obvious that it's happening because Microsoft isn't making mobile products that people want right now, companies may not be happy with this. Elsewhere, it was said that if you have a Surface or Win Phone phone, the increase won't apply. I doubt that will help.

They did something similar when they went to subscription pricing for Office several years ago. Not enough licensees were upgrading, so they figured they would pull the money out that way. Business are still not happy about that, and now Adobe is copying them.

At some point, there will be a backlash to this. Companies should build better products rather than to find a way to charge people, and companies, when they move to other companies products. I thought this was made illegal when they were forced to stop charging manufacturers for Windows even for computers that were sold without it. I guess not. The laws should be updated.




RE: Typical
By Articuno on 11/27/12, Rating: 0
RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/27/2012 1:29:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
overly expensive tablet that's useless for actual work
Yeah, iPad is useless for actual work while Surface with its Office 2013 and nice attachable keyboards is pretty useful for it. You nailed it on the head man!
quote:
cellphone that no one would voluntarily touch with a ten foot pole
Exactly, those corporate Blackberry 7 phones are indeed very unpopular these days I agree, but WP8 is getting glowing reviews and highest customer satisfaction scores, so you have nailed it again, thanks!

Looks like mass corporate migration to Surface and WP8 is inevitable, seems like the best mix of corporate software support with easy to use consumer friendly touch interface, plus Office 2013 to boot. It's a nobrainer for any enterprise.


RE: Typical
By FITCamaro on 11/27/2012 1:38:00 PM , Rating: 3
I knew it was cold for a reason.....hell froze over.


RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/27/2012 2:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
Ya I was surprised MS made such a nice tablet, talk about hell freezing indeed. I was 100% sure they'd make unusable crap again like they did with the previous Windows tablets but boy I was in for a big surprise this time.


RE: Typical
By jimbojimbo on 11/28/2012 11:17:40 AM , Rating: 2
What previous Windows tablet did Microsoft make?


RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/28/2012 1:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Some ugly tablets were made even back in WinXP days by some OEMs, MS was providing software tho


RE: Typical
By dgingerich on 11/28/2012 3:13:07 PM , Rating: 2
In the Windows XP days, they tried this:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms950406.a...

I got my hands on the CDs and tried it out on a regular laptop. It was basically XP with a couple additional tablet like things, like a virtual keyboard. It really wasn't anything special.

They even tried this before that, with Windows 98. "Tablets" were about 2 inches think back then, had a single core processor at 75 to 150Mhz, 4-8MB of memory, and a full desktop hard drive. Battery life was about 45 minutes. Touch screen was single touch, and lousy with accuracy. (Think Target check out lane card swiper level technology.) It had a calibration applet in the control panel that they recommended you run multiple times per day because temperature changes caused the screen to become less accurate. There wasn't such a thing as wireless networking back then, either. I had to actually set one up for someone as their corporate machine. He returned it within 2 months.

It's been a long, sordid history for MS and tablets. They had been trying to make workable tablets for almost 20 years, and then, when technology and the market finally make it viable, they missed the boat. It's kind of funny.


RE: Typical
By ResStellarum on 11/27/2012 2:23:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, iPad is useless for actual work while Surface with its Office 2013 and nice attachable keyboards is pretty useful for it. You nailed it on the head man!


Actually the iPad has a lot of useful apps, as does Android. Windows RT (Surface) on the other hand has a non-commercial Office 2013 licence and that's about it. So on a scale of usefulness, Surface, and Windows RT are right at the bottom of the pile for businesses.

quote:
Exactly, those corporate Blackberry 7 phones are indeed very unpopular these days I agree, but WP8 is getting glowing reviews and highest customer satisfaction scores, so you have nailed it again, thanks!


Yet hardly anyone's buying WP. The ones that have, are mostly Microsoft fanboys, or employees directly and indirectly for Microsoft.

Then look at all the problems with WP8: randomly rebooting, lockups, poor battery, etc. Who on earth would be satisfied with that? Only fanboys or shills, no real customers.


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/27/2012 2:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
A very small percentage of users have had these issues. And unlike Apple, who would deny it was happening, MS is investigating the problem and will likely release a fix very shortly.

Of course I could point out the failure of Apple's iOS6, but it would clearly be lost on an "Apple fanboy".

Have you considered that people buy Windows Phones because they like them? Probably not.


RE: Typical
By TakinYourPoints on 11/27/2012 3:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying that Apple doesn't issue fixes for iOS.

Ok.


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/27/2012 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
No, I'm saying they deny the issue and then quietly release a fix for it, pretending it never happened. Example: iOS6 Exchange issue. Randomly when accepting or declining an appointment on your phone, it would send out a deletion notice for everyone who was invited to the appointment. Apple would not admit to the issue. Yet a small footnote in the 6.0.1 update "Fixes Exchange calendar issues".

Meanwhile numerous Fortune 500 companies told people to either not update to 6 or to not use their smartphone for calendar management. And Apple never admitted to the issue.


RE: Typical
By TakinYourPoints on 11/27/2012 5:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the clarification. Yeah, I agree with that.


RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/27/2012 3:42:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Actually the iPad has a lot of useful fart apps, as does Android
I hear ya
quote:
Windows RT (Surface) on the other hand has a non-commercial Office 2013 licence
Which is non issue 'cause you can purchase commercial license for it.
quote:
Windows RT are right at the bottom of the pile for businesses
And the latest Angry Birds touting iPhone is of course the first on the list for businesses. Riiiight. Oh wait... but isn't it Infinity Blade on the iPad, actually? I forgot what kind of business was it very useful for, could you remind me please?
quote:
Then look at all the problems with WP8
Still minor compared to issues that plague iPhones, all these antennagates, crappy scratchy cases, etc etc. Internet is full of stories of iOS bugs and problems, if you stop being blind you realize that WP8 is actually better than iOS. The stale grid of static icons looks like crap compared to customizable start screen with live tiles of various sizes composed to match your personality and what you do on your mobile device. And tiny screen of iPhone is so ugly compared with wide selection of 4.3" - 4.8" screens on WP8 handsets that even those static iOS icons can't be seen properly without an effort. All in all, if you buy iPhone these days, you must be either dumb or an Apple fanboy. WP8 seems to be the best with Android 4.1 close second.


RE: Typical
By nikon133 on 11/27/2012 4:17:29 PM , Rating: 2
Pirks, I still cannot determine if you are sarcastic or not.

Or if you really are Pirks, matter of fact.

Well done.


RE: Typical
By Jeffk464 on 11/28/2012 10:28:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Still minor compared to issues that plague iPhones, all these antennagates, crappy scratchy cases, etc etc. Internet is full of stories of iOS bugs and problems, if you stop being blind you realize that WP8 is actually better than iOS.


From everything I've read wp8 OS and now the hardware are actually really good. The problem is that its market share is so low that the app market stinks compared to iOS or android. Plus if you buy a wp8 device there is no guarantee that MS will grab more market share.


RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/28/2012 2:03:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
if you buy a wp8 device there is no guarantee that MS will grab more market share
I buy Windows Phone not because I want MS share increased, I don't give a dock about that. I buy it because it pwns all the competition at the moment. Even with all its disadvantages like (OMG!!!) missing Instagram. How can we live without that moronic Instagram shit eh? :))) LOL


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/28/2012 6:06:19 PM , Rating: 2
Instagram = Twitter for people who can't put together 140 characters into a coherent thought.


RE: Typical
By BigEdMan on 11/27/2012 1:46:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hey now, some us like/love/use Windows phones!


RE: Typical
By fredgiblet on 11/27/2012 4:39:10 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed. I've been accused of being a shill on another forum because I steadfastly believe that anyone looking to get a smartphone should at least look at Windows Phone. It doesn't have all the features of other platforms but with WP8 it has a few features no one else has and it has an actual DIFFERENT interface, you may not like it, but it's worth a try.


RE: Typical
By TakinYourPoints on 11/27/2012 5:48:21 PM , Rating: 2
I've been plugging Windows Phone since it first came out. Like you said, it is a legit (and stable) alternative to other platforms out there.

Unfortunately it became hard to recommend for a little over a year simply because the hardware didn't keep up with what was available for iOS or Android. Not supporting WP7 upgrades to WP8 on older devices was also a kick in the teeth, especially since centralized updates from Microsoft, not carrier controlled like with Android, was a big plus that it was supposed to have.

All that is behind though, and hopefully WP8 lives up to the potential of the platform. If customers buy into it then apps will follow. Competitive hardware and long term support is up to MS/Nokia.


RE: Typical
By fredgiblet on 11/27/2012 6:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
And hopefully WP8 is the last time for a while that phones get left behind on updates.


RE: Typical
By Pirks on 11/27/2012 10:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Apollo+ update is coming Q1'13 so yeah looks like slow updates of WP7 era are the thing of the past


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/27/2012 2:33:25 PM , Rating: 3
Please enlighten us on the Open Source alternatives to Exchange, SharePoint and Lync? How about Project Server? BizTalk? Open Source can't even get a good Active Directory replacement in place. I have clients who are 90% Linux in the data center who use Windows for AD, Exchange and SharePoint. If there were good alternatives, they'd be the first to use them.

But good luck.


RE: Typical
By ResStellarum on 11/27/2012 6:58:26 PM , Rating: 1
Most companies are getting away from hosting their own services, which are typically very expensive, and moving to the cloud.

quote:
Please enlighten us on the Open Source alternatives to Exchange, SharePoint and Lync?


If someone is dead set on hosting their own services, GNU/Linux is an ideal platform. Long before Microsoft offered those services, Unix was doing the hard work. Novell's Netware comes to mind.

GNU/Linux offers far more in terms of software and services than Microsoft. First of all, there's a plethora of distributions, many of which are specialised for server environments. These are rock solid stable platforms that power most of the internet right now. No graphical user interface required, and all remote management can be done via ssh.

Then there's popular software such as the LAMP stack, Samba, Postfix, Dovecot, PostgreSQL, and many more, too many to list. The difference between FOSS and Microsoft software is that FOSS is much more modular. Each software unit performs a specific job following the KISS principle, rather than being a jack of all trades and master of none like Microsoft produces.

It's pretty obvious to me that you don't understand how Linux, FOSS, and anything other than Microsoft software actually works. Time to take off your rose tinted glasses and stop drinking the Microsoft Kool-Aid.


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/28/2012 10:09:54 AM , Rating: 2
MS offers plenty of hosted solutions, so I'm not sure your point there. As for PostgreSQL, please spare me. It's an awful alternative to SQL if you want things like wide-spread vendor support and, well, support in general. And Postfix? Do you even know what Exchange does and is capable of?

I'll always, always, always use the best tool for the job. LAMP is probably the absolute best thing to use FOSS for as it's vastly superior to IIS and a SQL backend, not only for cost but for security and flexibility. But you're crazy to think that FOSS products can match MS in the enterprise for the major MS Business profit centers, if only because support for MS products is vastly superior to anything the FOSS platforms can offer.


RE: Typical
By alcalde on 11/30/2012 11:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
You don't appear to be familiar with PostgreSQL. What major vendors DON'T support PostgreSQL these days? Support for PostgreSQL is often better than commercial db support. The Wisconsin state court system switched from Sybase (what SQL server is derived from) to PostgreSQL and the person who made the switch told stories of often needing to wait weeks for Sybase to issue patches to fix problems while just using the *free support* from the PostgreSQL community he was able to get in touch with actual developers and usually have solutions in 24 hours. That's not counting the commercial support from companies like EnterpriseDB. The performance of PostgreSQL was also superior and the feature set so rich they were considering abandoning coding completely in portable standard SQL to take advantage of the extra features.

What exchange is capable of? I know! Creating ridiculous amounts of vendor lock-in it's almost impossible to extricate oneself from? :-) Seriously, it's a simple e-mail server and groupware system with shared email, contacts, address book, etc. Software to replace that is a dime a dozen... Zimbra, eGroupWare, Kolab, etc. If you want to put the pieces together from disparate sources the options are much larger.

You're doing nothing except regurgitating old saws "... support is vastly superior". Those who have actually (attempted to) use MS support beg to differ. There's not even **an open bug tracker** for Windows or Office! If you can find where to report a bug you simply enter your information in without even be asked for an e-mail address for follow-up! It probably gets sent right to /dev/null. Office is so riddled with bugs it's hard to fathom. For a decade statisticians have been warning their colleagues not to rely on Excel for statistical work in numerous published papers. Unlike other software vendors, MS simply refused to fix bugs that they revealed, to the point where one paper even asked the question, "Does Microsoft Bother To Fix Bugs In Excel?" Some Excel functions returned ZERO digits of accuracy! Many of them existed from Excel 97 and only got fixed in Excel 2010! 2010 is much better now (on the functions that have been tested, at least) but still has some issues and the original paper authors still haven't cleared it for serious work. Meanwhile, they've written about open source spreadsheet Gnumeric, whose five or six unpaid volunteers took their list of errors (far less than Excel's) and fixed most of them within a few weeks and the next release of Gnumeric passed their benchmarks with flying colors while it's been a decade-long oddessy for Microsoft to slowly fix the identified problems in Excel (sometimes exchanging one inaccurate algorithm for another inaccurate algorithm). OpenOffice also had issues, but again much less than Excel and the developers were happy to have the problems found and moved to correct them immediately.

I wouldn't let a company that takes 13 years to fix serious bugs (for which optimal algorithm solutions are generally well-known and published in the public domain) get their software anywhere near my company's PCs. Support is NOT vastly superior. That's before you get into the fact that Master Documents in Word has been broken since Word '95 straight through 2010 and large documents will inevitably lead to corruption. And I can also get into what Access users have had to put up with. Or go way back and bring up the phony error messages they used to put in their products that would come up if you were using a non-MS DOS to scare you. No, "superior support" has never been what MS has been known for. I'll take the commercial support offered for open source products by many vendors or even the free support from developers and users over MS any time. The best part with open source is that you can fix non-trivial problems oneself (or pay another firm to do it) without having to wait, hope and pray that Redmond or Cupertino get around to it. Just two days ago I was testing out OpenSUSE 12.2 before upgrading and found an issue where the password was being asked for multiple encrypted partitions at bootup even though it should only ask once because they all use the same password. The boot system employs human-readable scripts - if you can call bash scripts readable :-) - and I was able to find the appropriate one and figure out generally what it did even though I am not a bash programmer and last looked at bash 25 years ago when I got to play around on an old UNIX mainframe at AT&T after school as a kid. I thought I might know what the problem was but not why, cut and pasted a line, added a few more words, rebooted and - voila! It worked! Now I can not only file a bug report but a solution report as well. :-) My first open-source contribution. :-) If it was Windows, I'd have had to file a bug report into the void and if I was lucky wait for Patch Tuesday assuming they considered it a bug and then that they got to it right away. Even if I didn't find a solution (and I'm sure SUSE will implement a slightly cleaner one) since the problem was small I'm sure I would have heard back right away from a developer as it was easily reproducible in a VM and probably even been given the fix to try out/use before it made it into the patches - which DON'T wait for Patch Tuesday before going out.

No, the old saw about support really doesn't apply anymore. I know of one firm that provides paid support for FIVE HUNDRED open source tools from libraries up to applications and OS. I've had no problems relying on open source and its support for small business, and even many large firms today have no problem either... I think I saw something about over 80% of U.S. businesses using at least one open source component in their businesses today. PostgreSQL is used everywhere from pharma giants Genentech and BASF to the U.S. CDC, NWS and state department to Apple, Red Hat, IMDb, Reddit, and at least until MS bought it, Skype.

[Regarding switching the Wisconsin court system to PostgreSQL]:
"We've been very happy with both the performance of the product and the support we have received from the mailing lists. Overall, PostgreSQL has been faster than the commercial product from which we converted. Even more important is the fast response we have had when posting problems to the lists. We have normally had a fix within 24 hours. Frankly, the support has been amazing."


RE: Typical
By dgingerich on 11/27/2012 2:49:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
or switch to open source software and save even more money while gaining extra security.


Really?! I've dealt with open source software a lot lately in my test lab. We seem to do about 3/4 of our testing with Linux, mostly RHEL but some SLES. It's horrible. Things that it takes 4-5 mouse clicks and about 2 minutes to do in Windows Server take two hours and hundreds of keystrokes to do in Linux, but it is far better than HP-UX, AIX, or Solaris.

Before I had this job, I used to think "I don't know much about Linux or Unix, so they may have a point in thinking it is a better alternative." Now I know better. Linux is far less stable than Windows Server, and much more difficult to do just about anything. (RHEL 5 had some useful features, but they took them out in RHEL 6. What a horrible set of design decisions on the part of RedHat.) Unix, meaning AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, and the now defunct IRIX, May be more stable, but talk about horrible to work with, and they are horribly, horribly closed and proprietary. I completely fail to understand why anyone uses such horrible operating systems. Changing an IP address and domain in Solaris requires editing no less than 4 different text files in three different locations. There is no single control panel to adjust these things. What makes that even worse is the horrible text editor. IRIX is even worse! A coworker of mine has spent the last two months trying to make our new Spark T4-1 system even work, directly out of the box! He's spent more time on the phone with Oracle support than he has doing his testing, which is his main job.

There's a joke that goes around the office that goes something like this: "Microsoft gives you lots of tools, but Linux and Unix gives you the chance to make your own." My version is "While Microsoft gives you a hammer to pound in a nail, Linux leaves you with iron ore and a tree to make the hammer and nail." It's far, far more work to do anything.

Also, the general opinion on Windows supposed lack of security has been vastly overblown. It's more secure than any version on Linux, from my experiences. Seriously, NFS doesn't even have user credentials to access files. There isn't even a mechanism to allow for it! Permissions are handled at the file level, but when sharing between system over the network, you have to either give it all away to everyone or close it off to everyone. There is absolutely no user accountability. How much more insecure and inconvenient can you get?

On top of all that, remote management is horrible, too. The only things available are VNC, which is slow, buggy, and refuses to work for mysterious reason, or text only SSH or Telnet. All that typing is really hard on the hands.

In my opinion, any IT department would be wise to reconsider using any version of Unix, and shun Linux completely. Windows Server is so far superior, it's not even funny.


RE: Typical
By fic2 on 11/27/2012 4:07:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Before I had this job, I used to think "I don't know much about Linux or Unix, so they may have a point in thinking it is a better alternative." Now I know better. Linux is far less stable than Windows Server, and much more difficult to do just about anything.


I think you were correct before you had your job - you don't know much about Linux or Unix...


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/27/2012 4:26:21 PM , Rating: 2
Or you don't know much about Windows Server stacks and assume Linux is easier. Just saying...


RE: Typical
By dgingerich on 11/28/2012 1:10:21 PM , Rating: 2
Well, let me put it this way, we have about 4 times as many Linux test machines than Windows test machines, with over 1300 systems total, yet I rarely get calls on Windows machines, about one per month or less. I get constant problems with Linux machines. In our last power outage, (we have rather unstable power, this outage was a yoyo type outage, where it would come up for about 15-30 seconds and go down again, repeatedly for over 16 hours) we lost 19 Linux boxes to software problems, and all had to be rebuilt from the ground up. We did not lose a single Windows machine. We even lost one Solaris machine. Our half a dozen AIX and HP-UX machines did fine, but they weren't set to autoboot after a power outage.

The Windows machines did have some issues booting up, in that they didn't complete the previous boot and went into safe mode asking if there was a hardware problem. I just had to go through ipmi and tell the machine to reboot normally. I've never seen Linux or Unix do that. I haven't even seen Linux or Unix have a safe mode boot option to try to salvage the server if there is damaged files.

On top of that, I can make a DHCP, DDNS, and firewalled router out of a Windows Server box in about an hour, but Linux takes days, and tons of typing and testing, and that's just DNS and DHCP. It can't even do dynamic DNS, and routing takes even longer to get working, if it ever works. (Yes, I know iptables does routing. Have you ever tried to get it to work? Have you ever tried to find directions? Apparently, there are so many different version that all use different syntax that you can't even be sure any of the commands are taken correctly. If a NIC goes bad, you have to redo the whole thing from scratch. Forget trying to do it with a VM, you'll have to redo the whole routing setup every time it reboots. ip6tables routing is even more mysterious.) Oh, and forget any sort of documentation. these programs are done by engineers in their free time, meaning documentation is sparse and completely inaccurate. Completely forget using Linux for any sort of database server unless you've been thoroughly trained, and then only for the version you've trained for. Absolutely nothing is intuitive in Linux. Windows is intuitive in everything.

In three years in this job, I have learned a lot about Linux. The more I learn, the more I hate it. It's ancient, very poorly designed, (I swear HP-UX was designed by hell-spawn) and very poorly supported. Advanced systems are easier to use. That's the point of advancement: to do more, easier. The ancient attitude of Unix and Linux engineers is completely backwards from what it should be. Making it harder to use doesn't ensure your job by making you irreplaceable. It ensures that you will be replaced by someone who will do it right.

Linux support people cost more than twice Windows support people, and Unix is even worse. More Linux and Unix support people are needed to do that support these days, too. Windows has become so much more stable and secure in recent years that it's passed up everyone in that area. Windows 7 needs less than a third of the support calls of previous versions, and many more of those calls are easily handled remotely. A company basically just needs trained script monkeys to support their machines these days. A single good support person could support and office of 500 to 1000, depending on how locked down it is, easily with Win 7, where WinXP required about 1 per 100. Linux is still stuck on needed about 1 per 50. Unix has been about 1 per 200-250, depending on the version, for about 30 years.

That's why Windows is constantly increasing in market share, and Linux and Unix are constantly losing.


RE: Typical
By GatoRat on 11/28/2012 11:31:05 AM , Rating: 2
Years ago, I worked at a place that announced with great fanfare that they were moving critical data center servers to Solaris. Long story short; six months later, they abandoned the project and returned the hardware. The only place it remained was to handle some massive disk drive arrays where terabytes of temporary records were stored (not in a database, but as files.)


RE: Typical
By Labotomizer on 11/27/2012 2:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Clearly you don't understand licensing. How can it "Not apply to Surface or Windows Phone" users? It's a PER USER CAL. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the type of device you connect from.

As for businesses not being happy about subscription office, you do realize most large organizations buy Office with Software Assurance, which is the base cost of Office and a subscription. It's cheaper for large companies with the new licensing schemes.

As for Microsoft should "Build a better product", again you clearly have no f'in idea what you're talking about. SharePoint, Exchange, SQL, Windows Server are all improving rapidly. And guess what, there is NO good alternative for what Exchange is capable of, same for SharePoint.

So MS should never increase pricing is what you're ultimately saying. CAL prices haven't changed in over a decade. There's this thing called inflation, which the 15% over 10 years doesn't really account for. Fortunately people like you don't make decisions for companies.


RE: Typical
By jimbojimbo on 11/28/2012 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
I was wondering the same thing about inflation. Everything else costs more now so why can't they raise their prices?


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki