Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 19, 2004 @11:19AM from the great-order-up-a-few-dozen-cores dept.

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.

14 of 234 comments (clear)

Both links are the same! by byolinux · 2004-10-19 11:21 · Score: 5, Funny

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
Very similar indeed... by AndyCampbell · 2004-10-19 11:22 · Score: 5, Funny

That story on technewsworld is very similar indeed to the story on technewsworld.
1. Re:Very similar indeed... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 11:54 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Looks like the editors decided to simplify things and just put the dupe in the same story as the original, rather than creating a separate article.
Breaking News Bulletin by Shakrai · 2004-10-19 11:23 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
Will licensing costs remain the same? by ffattizzi · 2004-10-19 11:24 · Score: 5, 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
Bummer by timeOday · 2004-10-19 11:25 · Score: 5, Funny

Admit it, we Penguinistas are dissapointed :)
Re:Stupid question by Anonymous Coward · 2004-10-19 11:34 · Score: 5, Informative

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.
Re:Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading by Zeever · 2004-10-19 11:42 · Score: 5, Informative

There's one difference: HT (Intel's SMT) is a way to use the processor resources more efficiently. Dual Core is like having two real CPU's (not exactly, because they share lots of stuff). The performance difference between HT and Dual Core is abysmal.

--
-- Who, you?
Re:Good, less copyright violations by lowe0 · 2004-10-19 11:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.
Marketing Fluff by null+etc. · 2004-10-19 11:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

I just ran the linked news article through my Marketing Cut-N-Paste Detector(TM), and have displayed the results below. All phrases in bold are determined to have been directly cut-n-paste from previous marketing articles.
... Analysts have warned that software makers might license their server products at double the price for double the number of cores, but many have also indicated that software companies have little to gain from multicore price increases.
... Although some vendors have hinted they may charge more for software licensing on multicore processors, most have moved closer to Microsoft's announced stance, which seeks to maintain the status quo without charging more for multicores.
"Microsoft software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed per processor, not per core, for hardware that contains dual-core and multicore processors," the company said in a statement.
Microsoft said its multicore licensing decision is aimed at driving higher volume and better value with the advent of dual-core and multicore server processors from both AMD (NYSE: AMD) and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) , which are expected in hardware beginning next year.
... "Our customers want to understand software costs as they evaluate the return on investment of new technologies, such as multicore processors," said Microsoft vice president of licensing and pricing Brent Callinicos in a statement.
... According to Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds, the fear has been that software vendors would double their prices for dual-core processor coverage, creating big cost jumps for enterprise customers. Gartner recommends customers attempt to negotiate software licenses that count a single-chip device as one processor, regardless of how many cores it carries.
While some vendors, including IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) , have signaled they might charge more in licensing for dual-core and multicore products, Microsoft confirmed what many analysts had predicted -- that the addition of processor cores was by no means an opportunity for software vendors.
Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told TechNewsWorld that Microsoft was making a proactive move to address the issue, but was also signaling to its customers that it is not a hardware vendor and could not lower software prices along with the dip in hardware costs that comes with the efficiency of multicore chips.
DiDio said that while customers might benefit from more efficient processors and interaction with the software, they will pay the same rate they've been paying to license Microsoft products with the new hardware.
"This multicore technology really illustrates the dichotomy between the rapid advancement of hardware capability, which is in turn making issues with how software companies license the technology," DiDio said.
[Editor's note: I admit that the previous three paragraphs come from an alternate universe in which everyone speaks marketing lingo, and understands each other.]
Referring to the complexity of per-processor licensing, even without the addition of dual-core technology, DiDio said software makers do not want to be seen as raising their prices, for fear of losing customers.
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.
She said IBM is in a different situation since it makes money not only from software and services but also from hardware.
A sigh of relief... by ConceptJunkie · 2004-10-19 11:59 · Score: 5, Funny

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.
This has to do with Intel, not Microsoft... by GFLPraxis · 2004-10-19 12:18 · Score: 5, Insightful

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...
Re:Hmmm by sharkey · 2004-10-19 13:25 · Score: 5, Funny

then again, how many M$ products can you name that DO work ? :)
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.
Sad news. by Fortress · 2004-10-19 14:29 · Score: 5, Funny

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.