Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses
esimp writes "According to technewsworld:
'As servers with dual-core processors come closer to hitting the market, Microsoft announced today it will not base its per-processor software licensing charges on the number of cores in a chip, sticking to the traditional price per processor, regardless of its number of cores." Update: 10/20 00:37 GMT by T : One of the identical links to TechNewsWorld's story has now been deleted.
Maybe MS thinks they can't really argue processor = core. Well, actually they can if they wanted to.
But more seriously, is it a sign that MS has more benefits from this arrangement?
Uselessful technology (Air-Charged
Of course not, like everything else is becoming more virtualized. What if someone has 1 xeon counting as 2 processors running windows. Then they install vmware to install many windows OSes for testing. is that still 1 CPU? No lawyer can move at the pace of engineers!!!
Microsoft did the same thing with Hyperthreading, where under WindowsXP the number of physical processors determined if you needed to run Home or Professional. Previously, under Win2k if you had a dual HT machine, Win2k saw the machine as a quad processor and forced you to install advanced server to get the full performance. Under WinXP, you only need Professional (or home if you have a single processor).
Nevertheless, software vendors have proceeded cautiously on the core question, with rivals IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft and others waiting to see how the others approach the issue, partly to learn what works and partly to have the opportunity to counter, according to DiDio.
:)
Good to see that atleast MS is brave enough to go ahead and do what they will. As much as I do not like their policies, atleast they didn't sit around waiting for others to show the way.
She said IBM is in a different situation since it makes money not only from software and services but also from hardware.
Ofcourse! This would mean that IBM would take up a position that hurt's Microsoft's stance
Should prove interesting.
It's just common sense. Imagine if Ford built a twin-engine car and the government wants to charge twice the road tax....
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
"...will base the pricing on the number of processors the operating system shows present in the machine"
If you hate MS' copyright, why not use software which doesn't impose such a restriction?
It's not like Bill Gates is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to install Windows. If a free alternative exists, then you have no excuse - you're just freeloading scum.
The details we won't hear are, of course, the various deals Microsoft cut with Intel and AMD to set their pricing this way. I mean let's face it, in one fell swoop MS could effectively end the chances of multicore processors if they decided to set a different pricing scheme. I wonder what they asked for...
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Microsoft said it won't charge for dual core ... BUT they never said it would ACTUALLY use both cores ....
:)
... then again, how many M$ products can you name that DO work ?
until (succeed) try { again(); }
+5 'Trustworthy' Computing
I'd expect that this has more to do with Intel than with Microsoft.
Intel has hit a brick wall. They're having a hard time increasing processor speeds. At some point, they'll realize that the best way to get a processing speed boost is to slap a second core in the processor and call it a Pentium 5 or Pentium 4 Ultra or something like that, and sell it in high end desktops like Alienware.
Guess what happens if Microsoft charges per core? Intel won't be too happy with them...
It is in Microsoft's best interest to keep people on the upgrade path. New computer = new Windows license. (Most consumers do NOT build their own computer.)
The frequency speed increases seem to be slowing down. Multi core chips are the current best hope for keeping us on the upgrade cycle.
... for now.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.