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.

Comments

My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[donnacha]

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.

Re:My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[Altephfour]

Good man.

Re:My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[pallmall1]

I've got a life. I just can't remember what directory it's in.

Re:My Own Virtual Licensing Scheme

[hakr89]

$ find life
find: life: No such file or directory

wow.

[Spy der Mann]

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.

fill free to count

[big.iron.wiz]

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; ...

This, of course, means war

[oGMo]

I guess the answer for this is to start paying for virtual licenses with virtual money.

Great!

[Cytlid]

This means they'll be accepting virtual money, right?

Obviously a tough decision...

[kaschei]

From TFA:

Under Microsoft's existing licensing policy, the maximum number of licenses that a customer has to buy for one application is equivalent to the total number of processors in the box, Park said.

Microsoft struggled with that fact, said Zane Adam, a director of marketing in the company's Windows Server group.

Translation: "It was a tough call, but we decided not to limit the amount of money we can charge to run the same code. It wasn't an easy decision, but we'll take your money after all."

Now Microsoft will really be able to compete!

[Helpadingoatemybaby]

As a Microsoft customer I feel this should really simplify things for me. Now my TCO between Linux and Windows will be much better and favor Microsoft! I can easily understand paying hundreds of dollars for a virtual process (which means, of course, a process that would be like a virtual machine, you know, a bunch of threads -- which I'm running now, but they're not actually a bunch of machine-like threads, well, they are, since they're on my machine, but they're not, like separate machines. If I were to say, run an emulator on my machine then I should pay Microsoft... wait... okay, now I'm getting confused.

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!

Right!

[gst]

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.

Was I the only one to misread the title...

[Tavor]

Was I the only one to misread the title as "Microsoft adopts Viral licenses"?

Sure, no problem

[Diabolus777]

I'll just pay them with virtual money

Now all we need to do

[Freexe]

is come up with a vitual host that has no processors

finally they step up

[wardk]

MS has been charging for virtual innovation* for ages, it's about time they stepped up to full disclosure.

* the gatesean technical term for krapware

Why license by CPU anyway?

[gellenburg]

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?

Re:Well...

[imr]

On slashdot we only virtually read the articles, that's our policy.

Re:How will this work for Windows?

[BrynM]

If they listened to their customers they would create 1 flavor of windows (non of this pro/server/enterprise crap). That 1 flavor would come with all the things you would need to make a server/desktop/etc and make that an installation question like most Linux distros do. Charge one flat fee for Windows(like $59) regardless of what you plan to use it for or how many processors you have. Make licensing simple and make it cheap and then people wouldn't have a need to pirate anything. By default you do not get any support beyond regular updates. If the customer needs extra support then charge them extra for it. Nice and simple. I would even buy a copy then.

Yes, I also would love a utopia, a personal under the desk redhead and a private jet. Until miracles happen, just think of this as the first of many million steps for MS in a pure customer service direction.

Half glass of water?

Re:1 Copy != 1 Price ?

[sootman]

Whenever I buy a pizza I have them cut it into four pieces. I can't eat more than four.

Re:Good for them

[RMH101]

with norton, you might as well just get it over with early, though. it's going to bork out at some point and cause you a world of pain, so why not do it early and save the suspense?