Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Adopts Virtual Licenses
* * Beatles-Beatles is one of many to let us know that Microsoft has changed how they handle licensing for Windows Server and related products with regards to virtual machine environments. The new regiment will allow per-processor licensing to be handled based on the number of virtual processors rather than the number of physical processors in the computer.
Great, I guess this means I'll continue to depend upon my own virtual licensing scheme, based on the amount of warez I can download.
Either is that greed talking or they feel that people cheat with terminal servers to avoid buying OS licenses.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
So if I have a server with a dual-core processor, I have to pay twice the price for Windows? With SQL Server or something else, you can limit it to only run on one processor, but not Windows.
They DID find a way to get even more money from their customers. And when we thought they were over, they finally did something innovative.
So if *someone* were to *accidentally* release a virus that doubled the number of virtual processors (I don't know how that's done, I'm assuming it's in software), MS would be able to charge twice?
Stop! Dremel time!
No (you fanatical moron) this is to prevent people from virtualizing a server and running 18 copies of Windows on it while paying for one.
Is this supposed to be cheaper? Unless people were running one virtual machine per dual-processor box, they will now be paying more. Isn't the purpose of virtualization to run multiple servers on one box, so one user can't access the other? Am I very confused?
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Other possible ways to count: ...
- MB per instalation;
- Number of temp files created and not deleted;
- Number of blue screen of death;
- Number of Bluetooth devices you won't use after upgrading service pack;
- Number of Linux Admin that will nag you for using Bill Gates OS;
I am portuguese. If you think my written english is bad, try posting in portuguese!
This means that if you decide you want to run VMWare and have 5 different, completely secluded servers (for security purposes...if one of the virtual servers goes down, the others will still run), then you will have to buy one license for every installation, as opposed to being able to install the same copy 5 different times under VMWare.
Yet another way to leach more money out of us.
I guess the answer for this is to start paying for virtual licenses with virtual money.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
This means they'll be accepting virtual money, right?
FLR
So if you're only running one instance of Windows (but sharing processors among threads) you're still only need one license. It's when you try to run 2 distinct copies of windows simultaneously on the same PC that you have to pay twice.
Although this is loosely equivalent to having to pay for your TV twice if you use it once for primary viewing and again for picture in picture...
So if I have a server with a dual-core processor, I have to pay twice the price for Windows?
Only if you're running vmware, virtual pc, or the like.
This seems to be an admission that it is not possible to isolate instances of user process memory space under Windows.
So if *someone* were to *accidentally* release a virus that doubled the number of virtual processors (I don't know how that's done, I'm assuming it's in software)
A "virtual processor" is created inside a copy of vmware, virtual pc, or other PC emulation[1] software. Good luck fitting a copy of a PC emulator into a worm's payload.
[1] Pedants: Virtualization involves emulating most of a PC, even if it does use JIT recompilation from x86 to x86. This is necessary in part because of design flaws in some kernel-mode instructions in x86.
Also check out his great series on running old games under Virtual PC.
/. is irrelevant.
I should not talk so much about myself if there were anybody else whom I knew as well. -Henry David Thoreau
Maybe I'd better start with the Linus Torvald's "per-seat cheek" licencing plan. Okay, I've got my spreadsheet out and I'm adding up the column marked "Zero." Now keep in mind that is PER PROCESSOR! Not per thread. No wait... that's per cheek. Dang formula!
Can someone please clarify for me how this will help Microsoft be more competitive, especially on the server side where they've taken a hit from Linux? I know everybody likes complicated and expensive licencing schemes, but still!
The baby's fine -- please stop sending business cards.
Microsoft can bill you as much as they want.
Bill Gates just creamed his jeans.
64bit systems were invented because you can emulate 2 32bit processors on them. And so instead of just 4 I can now run 8 C64 emulator instances on them.
1) This change affects only virtual processors, not physical ones. If your running VMWare or MS Virtual Server than this is for you. Otherwise move along.
2)This licencing scheme is designed to save companies money instead of giving up more for MS. For example, say you have a 16 processor system, and you VMWare it so your running 4 instances of Windows Server 2003 with SQL server. under the old system, you had to buy SQL Server for all 16 Processors. Now you would only buy for the 4 VM's
3) Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition is now licenced for 4 instances of itself per Machine. So you could run 4 Windows 2K3 Servers VM's on one server and MS says "go for it"
The Details from the Horse at MS
In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
How exactly do people cheat with terminal servers so that they don't need to buy an OS licence....won't they need an operating system to connect with terminal server anyway?
Don't know much about it, but how would they handle the situation where I'd limit say Windows to VCPU 1 and Office to VCPU 2.
Seems like I should only have to pay the single VCPU price, but I imagine that won't be the case will it...
Can someone please explain why any software vendor should even had the slightest idead what hardware you're running the software on? Maybe for support reasons, but they have no right in *$#@ to charge me more because of my better hardware! I don't get the logic AT ALL.
Was I the only one to misread the title as "Microsoft adopts Viral licenses"?
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
I, and others smarter than I, have ragged about this for a long time now. Microsoft is about money. Not innovation. Not imagination. Not kickass products. Money. No matter what the astroturf apologists say, it's about money. Their licensing model is whatever generates the most money. It will always be that going forward.
I just saw an article on, cnn.com I think, titled something like 'Time for Microsoft to grow up.' Grow up? They are already old. It's to their credit they're trying to take care of their investors, but they're doing it by adopting a business plan that can only doom them. Grow up, indeed. If they were any older their foundries would have _real_ bessemer converters.
I love this quote from the article: Higher prices 'benefit' consumers. I'll have to remember that one. </sarcasm>
"I filter at +6, and have yet to miss out on an important comment." (#822545)
Well Microsoft obviously had to do SOMETHING to keep their revenue growing, what with OS/X server approaching a usable state and with Linux and *BSD growing rapidly in the server segment of the market.
I for one won't be upgrading Windows any more. Linux is free, works very well, and aside from kernel/module updates does not require rebooting for most patches and configuration changes, so the only time my Linux servers see outages is when the power goes out or if I need to change hardware configuration.
Sorry Microsoft. The _only_ reason I won't go with Windows and have been migating to Linux is your hostile anti-customer stance and polices, and this shift in your licensing policy took your anti-customer movement from bad to worse. I'm still migrating to Linux, and as soon as I find a suitable migration path for group scheduling, my Exchange 2000 server is going bye-bye and my disks/licenses will be going up on eBay (I love right of first sale. I own the media and licenses, and thus can transfer ownership, regardless of what you might think, and courts have consistently ruled otherwise to date)
I've also been recommending the OpenOffice.org office suite to clients, even though I'd make more money on Microsoft Office, The only cost to the customer is the time to download the suite, or if they want us to install it, the time to install and to burn a CD containing the source.
IMHO Microsoft is committing corporate suicide, albeit a long and painful one.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I think DOSBox is more useful. It really does a good job on the old DOS stuff. The Windows stuff, well generally I find it'll run natively on XP with maybe a bit of tweaking.
Between DOSBox and what's built in, I rarely find an old game I can't run. DOSBox runs on Linux too.
http://dosbox.sourceforge.net/
Can we now do the following on a single virtual processor license?
Get 40 xeons all contributing to a single massive virtual processor.
That virtual processor runs 40 virtual virtual processors.
Either funny or insightful (the analogy is astonishingly true)
Hell I don't know. It doesn't make sense either way. Sounds grand and learned though.
REGIMEN: NOUN: 1. Governmental rule or control. 2. The systematic procedure of a natural phenomenon or process. 3a. A regulated system, as of diet, therapy, or exercise, intended to promote health or achieve another beneficial effect. b. A course of intense physical training.
REGIMENT: NOUN: 1. A military unit of ground troops consisting of at least two battalions, usually commanded by a colonel. 2. A large group of people.
I'll just pay them with virtual money
We should have been
So much more by now
Too dead inside
To even know the guilt
I think M$ should just forget all this silly per per core/per processor licensing. The best way for them to earn more money is to charge per clock cycle. They could then charge people a premium for running non-M$ software.
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
And i assume a virtual cpu license is cheaper then a hard cpu license, since performace is less.
So now you get a dual core cpu ( soon you wont have a choice ), and you get screwed by Microsoft.
What is next, back to per cycle charges?
Or how about just change to a national 'per brain' charge? Once a person is born, they just start charging you since eventually you will use a computer of some sort.
Its all a f-ing scam. Should they be able to make a profit? Sure. But should they be allowed to screw you? No.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Why does one copy of Windows cost more if you have more CPUs, since it's still only one copy of Windows? That's like buying a whole pizza where the price is based on the number of slices it's cut into. A pizza cut into 6 slices would cost $6, but the same pizza cut into 10 slices would cost $10.
It really should be 1 CD & 1 Product Key = 1 price.
is come up with a vitual host that has no processors
"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
What's the difference between running two instances of Application X on one CPU, and running one instance of Application X on each of two CPUs?
It boils down to the question "what is virtual, anyway?". If I run a process under an emulator, versus running it on the native operating system, there's no difference as far as the application is concerned. Only its execution environment has changed. So presumably I should require two licenses of the operating system, because I am running two instances of it.
It makes sense to count not CPUs but the number of concurrent instances of an application, irrespective where they run. For applications which are licensed according to some scale, of course. Thanks but no thanks, I'll stick with linux and OSS!
* the gatesean technical term for krapware
Can I pay for these virtual licenses with virtual dollars?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
fucking moron
They do it because they can use it to squeeze more $ out of you. And as long as people accept it, it will continue.
This is one reason 'per cycle' charges have almost dissapeared. Once the minis arrived on the scene, most people rebelled against that sort of license fee.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Take the difference between the average number of virtual processors per machine compared with the average number of actual processors (A) multiply it by the number of windows machines (B) mutiply by the charge per processor (C). A times B times C equals X. If X is more than the number of users who stop using Windows, then go with the new way of charging.
Man, and I bet they paid someone big bucks to come up with that formula. Everything I learned I learned from fightclub.
Can someone clearly explain to me why (other than greed) software is licensed based on how many number of CPUs/ cores are in a machine to begin with?
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/mult icore.mspx
"On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model."
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I think this kind of licensing is for situations where you run multiple VMs in blades.
My company recently setup a rack of 40 blades, each with 16GBs of RAM and all attached to SAN. Each blade is capable of running about 10 VMs. The same setup is duplicated at the redundant site, and a high-speed connection between the two locations, with about 92TBs of storage between them. Supposedly, the VMs can be moved around between any of the blade between the two locations, giving us the possibility of about 800 VMs...all within about 1 rack's worth of space.
Now, each blade does NOT have 10 processors, but is capable of running 10 VMs easily. And though I can't say I like Microsoft for wanting to charge for virtual processors, I can understand why they'd do it.
Thanks bill...
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
... aren't they merely saying that user's will pay for each instance of the software they run, independent of the number of CPU's in the box? Thus, if particularly demented users want to run 6 instances in a 1-cpu box, they'd pay 6x under the new scheme??
In this case Microsoft is a declared monopoly, the rules change. One of those rules should include not screwing people ( any longer ).
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Is there any available virtual PC environment that allows you to simulate more CPU's?, that is for example, if you have 2 physical cores, making an OS believe you have 4?
Most useful for testing multi-cpu software for basic compatibility I would think.
no, you pay 32 times as much.
but only if it's on sale.
otherwise it's 2^32 times more.
Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
Wow, I was gonna be nice and explain why 64bit != 2x32bit, but then I read through your old posts. You seem consistently uninformed in many areas, so I wouldn't want to disrupt the equilibrium of stupidity.
I think you need to go to work tomorrow and ask your HR person about your French benefits.
Are you thinking about Oracle? They're the ones charging different rates for faster machines and a per-core licensing. Microsoft, on the other hand, charges for full physical CPUs. Got a quad dual core machine? Looks like 8 CPUs, but you only need to be licensed for 4 on Windows. According to Oracle, you need to pay for 6.
No (you fucking moron) you always had to pay for those 18 copies of Windows. This just changes the price for virtualized processors.
Whatever happened to just buting a copy of the OS and it ran. I mean really like they need to be bastards and charge for instances of a software running. I mean I can install and run this game three times, but I only paid once. They don't seem to have a problem with that. It seems that your not buying a product anymore. Pretty soon they will charge per service per virtual server. That'll be sweet I bet. I just want to buy the damn cd and do whatever I want with what I friggin paid for.
w00t
0.3% of GDP on Windows licences! Are you having a proverbial "laugh"?
UK GDP - source Google - $ 1,782,000,000,000
0.3% of UK GDP = $5,346,000,000 or $5.4bn
I'm sure the UK spends a lot on Windows. But bear in mind that Microsoft's total annual revenues are only about $40bn, of which roughly half is client (Windows XP, etc.) and server (Windows 2003 Server). (In fact this over-states total Windows licenses, as there is also SQL Server, etc. in there.) But even on a best case, you're saying that the UK buys more than a quarter of all Microsoft Windows licenses. In fact, what you're really doing is making up sprurious statistics to get some temporary kudos.
Next item of absurdity: "the United Kingdom spends 0.3% of GDP on it's transport infrastructure". Really? Source please. Of course there is no source, because this is a ridiculous made up number. Lets go to the UK Office of National Statistics: oh! it turns out that the UK government (excluding what is spent by private industry) spends, da da, £20bn on transport infrastructure. (Which, at today's exchange rate is about $35bn, or around 2% of GDP.)
Of course, none of this would be necessary if: 1) software companies didn't burden their customers with alpha quality code and 2) it weren't so damn difficult to uninstall or unmuck-the-registry in Windows.
Taxing developers who support your technologies is not too bright IMHO
Who cares about licensing?
I work for a company who spends millions on it's EA agreement to use whatever and however much we want. Microsoft doesn't do everything right, but they also don't do everything wrong.
If I do the research, implement OSS solutions and save the company millions; I don't see a dime. Where's the motivation?
A beggar found shelter in a tavern and sat by a fireplace where a hunk of meat was roasting on a spit. Before eating his meager dinner, consisting of a piece of dry bread, he held it out toward the meat to catch some of the flavour. The tavern keeper saw him and demanded payment, causing the poor fellow considerable distress, since he had no money. A wise man who was eating at a nearby table saw the commotion and asked the keeper what the problem was. "This thief is stealing the flavour of my meat!" the keeper said. "If he wants it, he better pay for it or git out." "That's all right," said the wise man. He pulled out a coin, threw it down on the fireplace, picked it back up and replaced it in his pocket. "For the flavour of your meat, I have now paid you with the chime of my coin."
I was just looking at this today. If I understand it right, and please feel free to freaking flame me if I don't, WinXP PRO will only allow one client to access the XP PRO Remote Desktop server at at time. Now I don't know about 2000, but the point is, you can't buy XP pro in place of Server 2003...unless you only needed one client to access the server at a time to begin with. I also take it that a person can't buy more CAL licenses for XP PRO, as well, because I looked for that a little bit, too, and couldn't find any CAL add-on packages.
Usurper_ii
Ron Paul
and that's why you find a mainframe "at every desk and in every home." it's so popular.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
As noted in another reply on this subject, XP (and I think 2000), will only allow one client to access its built in "server" at a time. Your comment that those CALs aren't valid for 2003 Server (XP Server?) confuses me. I think you could use the client on XP Pro to connect to a 2003 server, as the 2003 Server should have its own Terminal Server Licensing Server that comes with its own CALs (5 pack, 10 pack, etc.), indepent of the client OS. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the CALs are server side, residing with the Licensing Server, not client side, correct?
Ron Paul
Microsoft is lowering the cost of VM, but is it enough? Say, I have a 4 way system hosting 8 virtual 1 cpu systems do I get a 50% discount on the license? No, I'll end up paying for 8 cpu licenses on a 4 way instead. Still it's better than paying for 32 cpu's in the previous plan.
Ah, didn't understand the article then :) No need to get mad.
Most IBM software is priced per CPU. And everything after that is in the customer's favor. If it's a dual core CPU you pay for one CPU, not two (unlike, say, Oracle). If you use virtualization software (like z/VM, LPARs, Virtual PC, or VMware) you only pay for the number of CPUs that the software actually executes on. If that means you run 300 instances of DB2 for Linux on a single Linux mainframe CPU running z/VM, you pay for one CPU, not 300. Unlike Microsoft. If you want to switch from DB2 for Windows to DB2 for Linux (on the mainframe or anywhere else), fine -- the processor licenses are cross-platform. Don't pay again. The main reason corporate customers run virtual machine technology is so they can consolidate the ridiculous numbers of test and development servers which cost a fortune. Under IBM's pricing policy that's encouraged, and they can get their costs under control. Under Microsoft's new policy it'll cost those businesses more if they use virtualization to any significant degree.
Wow! Web hosting with no SLA whatsoever - just what I was shopping for today!
"As the intrepid kobold companion continues his journey, he begins to wonder... if priests raises dead, why anybody die?
As in, if you buy a computer without Windows, you don't have to pay for Windows! This could catch on big! I doubt it will happen anytime soon...
Be heard || Be herd
I dug into this recently because we are setting up a number of systems running dual-core chips. Microsofts licencing policy was surprizingly reasonable (at the time) and it was Oracle who appeared to be looking to gouge us (but only if your running more then 1 dual-core processor, so we left a socket open).
Quack, quack.
document processor?
I suppose it depends on whether or not Microsoft think YOU are capable of performing a computation!
Ah Crap!
Assuming each of your blade servers has two CPUs -- not a bad assumption -- Microsoft just quintupled your software bill, didn't they? All the more reason to switch to Linux, Linux software, and processors that can do better than a 5 to 1 VM ratio. (Mainframe Linux comes to mind.)
[The PHB is being prepared to answer media questions or somesuch.]
Legal Weasel: [To PHB] "No matter what you're asked, always say that it will be good for the stockholders."
[Scene changes to PHB surrounded by reporters.]
Reporter: "Is it true that you ran over a stockholder in the parking lot?"
PHB: "It'll be good for him!"
In the mainframe world they have several ways of costing:
Per LPAR (virtual machine) capacity
Per CPU seconds used (rationalised for costing)
Per access - With some programs you pay for the number of times the program is run.
We recently had to negotiate with CA because we upgraded a mainframe (nearly doubled its capacity) and CA argued that we owed them more due to the LPAR having greater capacity.
This is akin to Windows Server Edition costing more because you are running it on a 3.4Ghz machine rather than a 3.0Ghz machine.
After dealing with mainframes for four years I have come to this concolusion when it comes to money: Companies will charge every cent they can, in every way they can up to the point of the customer not using their product.
The ending to the story above is quite nice. One of our managers nicely told CA that since we have not increased our usage of their product they can either submit a better offer than a $300,000 increase (we're halfway through a contract btw) or we will migrate to another product. We are talking about CA AllFusion Endevor here. There are alternatives. CA knows it. We know it. A better deal was done. (No, we are not privy to the details, only that it was more than what we are currently paying, far less than what they demanded, and we are continuing to use CA Endevor. I think someone tipped them off that we could be expanding to use more CA products in the future and that alienating us could cost them a lot of money).
http://www3.ca.com/Solutions/Product.asp?ID=259
However: For what we pay for the mainframe to run is nothing compared to what it costs to do the same transactions on Midrange. Ever looked up the price of using webMethods?
You have a sick, twisted mind. Please subscribe me to your newsletter.
Some people think that Microsoft is trying to save its customers money. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.
Reality: Some bean-counter will be getting a nice bonus this year for figuring out that M$ can lower prices and rake in more profit.
Without this licensing scheme, some people would have been tempted to use open-source equivalents of M$ products.
Now Microsoft is taking a stab at Linux by being more 'affordable'.
I for one, will continue to support our MySql overlords!
I only mow my lawn about every two weeks. My neighbor across the street mows his every week. Shouldn't he have to pay twice as much for a mower as I do?
If software companies are allowed to control "their property" in this way, I don't see why sellers of physical products won't eventually do the same thing. Instead of buying a product and owning it, you'll merely be buying a license to use it for a certain amount of time. Then the license will expire and you'll either have to renew it or throw the product away. Tell me how this is different from what software companies are already doing?
... they accept virtual cash, too! So this ten-dollar-bill really contains six paravirtualized ten-spots.
The new regiment will allow per-processor licensing...
Aggressive as they are, I didn't know Microsoft actually had their own army for license enforcement!
(The word you want is regimen.)
Except that 2003 SBServer doesn't support licensed Terminal Services anymore.
Yet another thing they removed on the transition from SBS 2000 to SBS 2003
And we invaded iraq for WMD.
Oh yeah, Santa is coming real soon.
This will reduce costs in the same way.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
If you have multiple virtual processors running on one actual box, you will pay more. If you have multiple physical processors running together, a la the oh-so-overused beowulf cluster joke, you will pay less. What's the big deal?
Samba 3 already does most AD things more efficiently and flexibly than AD. Samba 4 will absolutely ace it.
Not sure what MS-Exchange features you're looking for, either. Semi-automatically misconfiguring the HELO string? Dinking with attachments (maybe bundling them all into a WINMAIL.DAT file)? Write access to the entire mail database for the lowliest user? Randomly hanging onto mail for half an hour or so? Name your favourite!
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The new regiment will allow per-processor licensing to be handled based on the number of virtual processors
Microsoft is so generous to us.
Only one copy of Windows can be run at a time but if you have only one core in the machine with VMWare, that core actually switches between various copies of Windows very fast and runs only one copy at a time. Hence, one license.
Now Microsoft wants to change this. That's bad because we must pay more. Or we don't because contracts are binding and we bought XP knowing that we could install and run many instances of it in one machine with only one license. Now Microsoft wants to change this. It can't because that would be one sided change to the contract of seller and buyer afterwards. I think this only applies to new purchases.
Then again, you suckers live in the Land of Free(tm) and MS can sue your ass into oblivion anyway whenever it feels like doing so and whether it's justified or not.
How about not paying for software? Most people don't anyways.
If i have to pay for each CPU. I only pay by part of windows i use.
This is pathetic... Intel has dualcore CPU's with HT...DOes that mean i have to pay for 4 virtual processors?? just because i have a good computer??? that's just pathetic...
If you really want multiple concurrent RDP connections to an XP box (Terminal Services in miniature, basically), then you can with a bit of bodging:
Download the termserv.zip file (google it) and extract it somewhere. Reboot into Safe Mode. This is necessary to remove Windows File Protection.
Copy the termserv.dll in the zip to %windir%\System32 and %windir%\ServicePackFiles\i386. If the second folder doesn't exist, don't copy it there. Delete termserv.dll from the dllcache folder: %windir%\system32\dllcache
Merge the contents of Concurrent Sessions SP2.reg file into the registry.
Make sure Fast User Switching is turned on. Go Control Panel -> User Accounts -> Change the way users log on or off and turn on Fast User Switching.
Open up the Group Policy Editor: Start Menu > Run > 'gpedit.msc'. Navigate to Computer Configuration > Administrative Templates > Windows Components > Terminal Services. Enable 'Limit Number of Connections' and set the number of connections to 3 (or more). This enables you to have more than one person remotely logged on.
Now reboot back into normal Windows and try out whether Concurrent Sessions in Remote Desktop works...
Yes they finally did something innovative, and this should be patented!
When you haven't got a clue, you shouldn't be calling others "clueless", you MS fanboi.
What has escaped you completely is the concept of buying a copy of an O.S. and doing what you want with it. You know, the idea that it's actually YOUR copy when it's on your computer?
I'll run however many VM's I darn well please; and MS can go to hades if they think I owe them anything more.
You've got the words SUCKER written all over you; and you're too clueless to even see it.
I'd guess there's a lot more 1-cpu servers running virtual machines than 2+-cpu servers, am i right?
Good thing Google is slaying them!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
In other words, readers may have jumped to either conclusion based on their own experience, not whether they read the article. Thus, a huge debate raged about the wrong problems! Ideally, Microsoft would charge licenses on the minimum of each configuration (the lesser of [physical CPUs] and [virtual CPUs]), but then that's the consumer ideal. Oops, forgot the Linux reference: I pay 4 times as much for my Fedora server, which comes to a whopping $0!
Actually, sliced butter is the greatest since sliced bread.
http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1255 84
http://george-harrison.info/
Computer == HiFi
M$ software == CD
per-processor licensing == CD price = base price * consumer's-number-of-ears
does anybody else find this ridiculous?