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.
Who actually monitors the 'daddypants' account anyway? I know the number of times I've bothered to report errors has been greater than the number of replies I've got or number of errors fixed (ie. none)
Anyway, um, lovely that Microsoft aren't charging for multicore licenses. I'm still amazed they even charge for SMP licenses.
Join the Free Software Foundation
I bet debian does not charge more either. Oh hell I am willing to go out on a limb and suggest that Red Hat will probably not either.
Got Code?
That story on technewsworld is very similar indeed to the story on technewsworld.
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).
In other news, computer manufacturers report sales of multi processor single core machines are down, while customers are clamoring for multi core single processor machines.
MS is expected to revise it's statement tomorrow.
-Adam
Major US Company with virtual monopoly on product decides not to screw over customers. Details to follow.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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.
While this seems like good news, I suspect after multi core server become common (or sooner) it will cost more per processor to license these applications.
-Frank
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.
Admit it, we Penguinistas are dissapointed :)
So why don't I just take a bunch of processors, link them together, and claim it is all one processor with multiple cores, and force Microsoft to set its price down to the single processor price???
After all, a multi-core processor is really just multiple processors in one package, isn't it?
--
./Amiga/.
Video Production Support
I heard that Linux will charge TWICE the current amount as much for Multicore GPL licenses. :)
Not charging per core, whew, thus reducing our enterprise's total cost of operation!
"...will base the pricing on the number of processors the operating system shows present in the machine"
In a quick nutshell.
Essentially a chip with more than 1 CPU on it.
Instead of having a dual CPU with 2 fully seperate Xeons (for example), you now (in 1-2 years) will have a single Xeon that looks to the OS like 2 seperate CPUs.
The part of the CPU that contains the real logic is called the core, and the cache and interface stuff is well the non-core. So, they put the heart of 2 CPUs on a single chip and wrap 1 non-core cache & bus interconnect around it, and call it a dual-core CPU, or multi-core to be generic.
They make some changes in the bus interconnect to support this of course.
You'll see it in high end server chips at first and then it'll work its way down to the desktop. Business care about the per CPU licensing because that is usually how they pay for software.
Is today April 1?
No, it's October 19th. It's clearly marked right below the subject.
{and if the mods mark this informative i'll kill my self}
The Xeon processors will be the first Intel chips to use multicore processors, and will eventually make its way into mainstream chips.
Redhat ES vs AS server are based on CPU.
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.
Fewer pissed-off home users who don't have to pay an extra fee to use the second 'CPU,' I would imagine.
But why is this news? Microsoft confirmed this back when Hyperthreading first came out. They were charging on the basis of sockets, not cores.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Suggested reasoning for this was that we didn't charge more when processors increased in speed by upping the clock rate, so why do it when processors increase speed by adding more cores on the die?
...not engines, but axles.
Many toll roads charge by the axle. So if you have three (ie, you're towing a trailer or you have a big truck) they charge you more.
General Motors has decided to charge the same price whether you drive on two or four lane highways.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
With multicore, the CPUs are sharing a single memory bus. At the two-core level, this isn't too much of a performance hit, but by the time you hit four cores, you lose most of the benefit of that fourth core to the lack of memory bandwidth.
Intel's Xeon chips are running into this problem already. A single Xeon CPU has better memory performance than a single Opteron, but a four-way Opteron system, with a separate memory controller and RAM bank for each chip, blows away a four-way Xeon system, since the four Xeons have to share the memory controller and memory.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
in other news, Microsoft is switching to a per-transistor licensing scheme.
A sigh of relief rose from the collective pirates of the world, who realized they would not have to spend the extra half-hour hacking Microsoft OS activation for machines with multi-core processors and could instead catch a Simpsons rerun.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You forgot about SCO. $699 per procesor, what a highway robbery.
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...
I'm sure that a part of the decision was not making Linux more attractive for low to mid end servers.
It's already less expensive than Windows, if they charge more for dual or quad cores, the will really jack up the Windows TCO.
Microsoft is a business, they want to make money. Sometimes you can make more money by selling things at a lower price.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
But microsoft is being smart and realized that 1) 1 proc 2 cores != 2 proc 1 core and 2) people will be happier upgrading their systems under this system.
when you buy windows, the basic version allows 2cpu
Last time I checked, Windows XP Home Edition allowed 1 socket and Pro allowed 2 sockets.
Update: 10/20 00:37 GMT by T: One of the identical links to TechNewsWorld's story has now been deleted.
Yes, but can you guess which one?
Windows 95 (all CD editions)
Windows 98
Windows 98se
Windows Me
Windows NT4
Windows 2000
Windows XP
Windows 2003
Office 95
Office 97
Office 2000
Office XP
Office 2003
SQL Server 6.5
SQL Server 7
SQL Server 2000
Exchange 5.5
Exchange 2000
SNA Server 2.0
Publisher 98
Publisher 2000
Project 98
Project 2000
SMS 2
SMS 2003
All do a fabulous job of preventing rings from forming on my coffee table.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Yes. WIndows XP counts physical processors. Windows 2000, however, counts logical processors.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
Slashdot readers today mourn the death of their longest standing member, Anonymous Coward. Loved ones say he was driven to suicide by repeated +1 Informative moderation. Cause of death was self-inflicted registration. His fortune of karma, mostly gained from posting the full text of articles from slashdotted servers, is held up in court as no legal will was on record.