backtop


Print 45 comment(s) - last by hiscross.. on Nov 16 at 10:19 AM

Windows Server 2008 gets price; ready for a February 27, 2008 launch

A little over a year ago, many enthusiasts embraced all the latest release details on Windows Vista. Leading up the consumer launch of the operating system on January 30, many details including product packaging and pricing were revealed to consumers months ahead of time.

Microsoft decided to put the speculation to rest this time around with is new Windows Server 2008 operating system. The company has announced pricing for the eight editions of Windows Server 2008 and has reaffirmed the operating system’s Feb 27, 2008 worldwide launch date.

Pricing for the various iterations of Windows Server 2008 are as follows:

  • Windows Server 2008 Standard: $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs)
  • Windows Server 2008 Enterprise: $3,999 (with 25 CALs)
  • Windows Server 2008 Datacenter: $2,999 (per processor)
  • Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems: $2,999 (per processor)
  • Windows Web Server 2008: $469
  • Windows Server 2008 Standard without Hyper-V: $971 (with five CALs)
  • Windows Server 2008 Enterprise without Hyper-V: $3,971 (with 25 CALs)
  • Windows Server 2008 Datacenter without Hyper-V: $2,971 (per processor)

All versions of Windows Server 2008 (with the exception of the Itanium version which is 64-bit only) will be available in 32-bit and 64-bit editions. In addition, businesses can choose to forgo Hyper-V technology on Standard, Enterprise and Datacenter editions to save $28 USD.

Hyper-V is Microsoft's server virtualization technology and is only available on 64-bit editions of the software. Microsoft will also sell its Hyper-V Server as a standalone virtualization server -- it will be priced at $28 USD.

"With more than 1 million downloads and evaluation copies, we've built Windows Server 2008 based on a solid foundation of customer feedback, which is reflected in the product's ease of management, security enhancements and overall reliability," said Bob Kelly, corporate VP of Infrastructure Server Marketing at Microsoft. "The unprecedented range of customer choices and the virtualization enhancements will help customers tailor solutions built to fit virtually any business need."

"What we are trying to do enable customers to live in world where they treat all compute resources -- such as CPU cycles, storage, networking -- as a single blob while providing a consistent way of maximizing effectiveness and utilization while reducing costs for IT and making things more automated for IT," continued Andy Lees, corporate vice president of Microsoft’s server and tools marketing and solutions group. "And virtualization is the key piece of technology to enable that."

Microsoft already has a group of manufacturing backing its Hyper-V initiative including Dell, Fujitsu, Hitachi, HP, IBM, Lenovo, NEC and Unisys.

Likewise, in an effort to make virtualization more accessible and serviceable by customers, Microsoft is launching its Server Virtualization Validation Program. Customers will be able to validate their virtualization software using this program beginning in June 2008.

"As more customers deploy and virtualize Windows-based applications on Windows Server 2008 or other server virtualization software, this program will help ensure that customers receive a joint support experience for their physical and virtual infrastructure deployments," said Kelly.



Comments     Threshold


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

$28
By rippleyaliens on 11/13/2007 4:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
Did i read that right $28 for the hyper server itself?
AND oh great, another round of Microsoft Certification test UGGGGGg




RE: $28
By TomZ on 11/13/2007 4:52:33 PM , Rating: 3
Think of it as job security... :o)


RE: $28
By AstroCreep on 11/14/2007 1:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Job security that requires me to poop water for a week before taking said test.

I think I'm gonna start working at McDonald's.


RE: $28
By Bluestealth on 11/13/2007 6:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
That's one way to grab market share...


RE: $28
By erikejw on 11/13/07, Rating: -1
RE: $28
By arazok on 11/13/2007 10:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
Thats dirt cheap compared to some business software.

Last project I worked on, we paid $20,000 per CPU for an OCR software license, and $40,000 for a RightFax Enterprise license.


RE: $28
By Snuffalufagus on 11/13/2007 11:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
'No wonder that everyone goes Linux today.'

That's not what I've been reading, and Linux versions that include support are roughly the same cost (I think that's still accurate, I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong).

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2207368,00.as...


RE: $28
By Lifted on 11/14/2007 4:53:12 AM , Rating: 2
Costs the same until you add in CAL's, which can cost you up to tens of thousands of dollars for a single server.


RE: $28
By stmok on 11/14/2007 6:56:24 AM , Rating: 2
CAL?

Is that "Client Access License"?


RE: $28
By euclidean on 11/14/2007 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
yes....

I've been playing around with the beta of this....just as good if not better than the merge from win 2k server to 2k3...fun stuff, good thing we have a contract with Microsoft here that will let us upgrade our Win2k3 servers to 2K8 at no extra charge lol. But really, in the end, those prices aren't that bad at all in a corporate enviroment, especially when most servers we have cost 2 times the amount that license does.


RE: $28
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 8:11:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No wonder that everyone goes Linux today.

Actually, if you look at the server market, that's not what's happening today. There was a large growth in Linux for servers replacing Unix installation. That transition is now largely complete, and what you see now is Windows slowly but steadily growing its server market share, both in terms of market share %, plus of course the server market itself is also expanding, so that translates to a greater number of units.

If anything, the trend is clearly towards Windows Server and away from Linux.


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 8:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If anything, the trend is clearly towards Windows Server and away from Linux.


Perhaps for small businesses that don't have an in-house IT support staff, this may be accurate. But for larger corporations with an experienced IT staff, the move has been away from iSeries and Windows machines to blade servers running *nix variants, particularly in applications where security and performance (uptime & efficiency) are critical.

I will agree with you that many small businesses and medical clinics are migrating to Windows Server, but the bigger companies are using HP-UX (9000) and Sun servers with Linux or Solaris.


RE: $28
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 9:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
You might be right, but the recent articles I've come across on server market trends in the past 1-2 years don't support what you're saying. Try google and see for yourself.


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 10:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Try google and see for yourself.


I searched with these terms:

servers: windows vs linux market share

and found that the IDC and various market research firms results are skewed. The rate of Linux growth/adoption has slowed, but it still outpaces Windows Server from what I have looked at, once you take into account how they got their numbers. Part of the slowdown can be attributed to as you have said, replacing Unix machine apps with Linux, and the last of these changes will probably occur in 2009-10.

It appears that the "accounting" methods for Windows Server vs Linux market-share differs because of the hardware bundles being sold, whether it be cabinets, racks, processors, etc, where Linux usually isn't bundled but Windows Server many times is. Also, the reports do not account for old, recycled machines, where Linux is generally installed instead of Windows for a specific purpose, say a CVS repository, file server, or consolidation server. The market-share reports are simply not thorough enough to be accurate in stating that Windows Server is taking over the market.

I think that over the next year or so, we'll actually see an increase in Linux market-share, but time will tell. Many, if not most, big companies that still have iSeries machines will be replacing them with HP or Sun servers running Linux over the coming years, which will save them a lot money.

J2EE is still going strong against .NET, and this doesn't appear to be changing any time soon. Database servers with high loads demanding maximum performance still use Oracle on Linux. And finally, Windows, despite its improvements, is simply not as secure as Linux.

I just don't see Linux going anywhere. At least, not until Microsoft comes up with something that is truly revolutionary, something that would actually cause people switch from Linux.


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 10:20:59 AM , Rating: 2
Interestingly, I just noticed that Microsoft issued a new security patch for Windows Server 2003.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_hi_te/mi...

I don't know how serious this is though, it may not be an imminent threat. But it just goes to show why so many big companies with security concerns use Linux machines.


RE: $28
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 10:37:30 AM , Rating: 3
Only a threat if people are actually dumb enough to have end user applications installed on their server and then browse the web with that.

If someone is using their servers as a workstation, well then they've got bigger problems with URI bugs.


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 11:00:34 AM , Rating: 2
LOL, true enough, you cannot fault Microsoft for users' stupidity.

That being said, Windows Server could be exploited through remote code execution or certificate validation via the server service itself, not through Internet Explorer.


RE: $28
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 11:54:07 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting, I'll have to look into that. I didn't read the full vulnerability description yet so didn't hear that it was exploitable through the certificate service.

Thanks


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 12:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I didn't read the full vulnerability description yet


Neither did I. ;)

I just glanced through the summary on Microsoft's advisory bulletin board after seeing the article on Yahoo, and from what I could interpret, it seems that the server service itself can be vulnerable. If you decipher more of it, please share, as I am curious as to what they mean exactly.


RE: $28
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 1:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I've seen, this is only client side exploitable.

http://www.cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=...

Still a pretty big bug especially on clients, but should not be a real issue on servers.

Haven't had a really good server remote exploit bug for a while :(


RE: $28
By Casper42 on 11/15/2007 3:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
You guys are both a bunch of morons.

Big companies use ALL the OSes you guys have been mentioning.
At my company we use all kinds of servers.

By volume: (keeping in mind Windows servers average like 10% utilization while Sun and Linux are more like 40-80% depending on function)
#1 - Windows (2000 and 2003 mainly)
#2 - Solaris
#3 - Linux on x86/x64
Then for some specific applications we have HPUX, DEC VMS, and Yes, even MAC Servers for the Marketing guys. Alot of VMWare ESX on x86/x64 as well. Primary File Server is NetApp with some EMC for SAN.

To go around googling and say All Big companies are swithinc to X is ridiculous.

And I will tell you from experience, Linux is replacing more SUN than it is Windows. Oracle on Linux on an HP DL585 gets you ALOT more bang for your buck than Oracle on Solaris on Sun Sparc.

Keep in mind that niche programs even today are still most often written on a Windows platform.


RE: $28
By Spivonious on 11/14/2007 9:35:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's pretty cheap. Oracle database will run you about $40,000 per processor + $20,000 for each additional core.


RE: $28
By aharris on 11/14/07, Rating: 0
RE: $28
By darkpaw on 11/14/2007 10:40:00 AM , Rating: 3
Yah right. I've not seen a single Mac OSX server in use in any organization I've looked at in the past year.

The licensing cost doesn't matter to big businesses really, its all a matter of functionality.


RE: $28
By ksuWildcat on 11/14/2007 11:14:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've not seen a single Mac OSX server in use in any organization I've looked at in the past year.


I agree 100%. Not only that, I haven't seen any Mac desktops or workstations running OSX in corporate environments (outside of a few graphic artists in smaller companies) this year.


RE: $28
By aharris on 11/14/2007 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
I don't doubt it whatsoever. Active Directory and domains rule the corporate world. We use Mac OS X Server for our smaller clients, where open directory is sufficient and a lowered cost of support is beneficial.

Oh, and OS X desktops are used with clients ranging from architect firms, graphic design/web development firms, law firms, and doctor offices. Most of our clients are cross-platform (Mac, Windows, Linux... not necessarily in that order), and I hate the narrow-minded pov that all fan-boys have. Each platform has its advantages in different situations; IT will be a better world for the end-user when this is fully realized.


RE: $28
By Montrevux on 11/14/2007 3:19:29 PM , Rating: 2
Apple doesn't even use Mac OSX Server for their own webserver.


RE: $28
By aharris on 11/14/2007 4:40:08 PM , Rating: 2
1. I assume you didn't read my post above about Mac server in a corporate environment.

2. Always provide evidence to support factual claims.

3. Most likely they're running their web servers (plural, as in a cluster; not a single web server) in a unix environ, which is what OS X is based on. A full OS is not required to host a website, just the bare-bones networking and apache services. Losing the extras also helps shed the security flaws that come into play when you add all the bells and whistles any full OS brings to the table.

4. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with your comment. Some insight would be appreciated.


RE: $28
By hiscross on 11/16/2007 10:19:26 AM , Rating: 2
I won't challenge your intelligence, but a brief search form Netcraft shows a different story:

Apple Computer, Inc. 20740 Valley Green Drive, MS32E Cupertino CA 95014 US 17.112.152.32 unknown Apache/1.3.33 Darwin PHP/5.2.1 28-Oct-2007 (Darwin is Open OSXbtw)

Their store does seem to run Solaris:

Apple Computer, Inc. 20740 Valley Green Drive, MS32E Cupertino CA 95014 US 17.149.156.10 Solaris 8 Apache/1.3.33 Darwin 28-Oct-2007


RE: $28
By dhluke on 11/13/2007 8:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
It's just software, pretty much like VMWare ESX. Of course I belive the ESX versions cost way more than $28, while the VMWare Server is free.

Anyways, just image a business with 1-2000 computers, they'll get murder on license fees.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Related Articles













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