Windows Licensing !!

[epping]

Hi all

So have been running a POC for about a year now and all things have gone well, I want to start roling out the Windows licensing is a nightmare.

for users accessing via a thin client it is fairly simple i buy a Win VisEnt CentralDsktp Sngl Monthly Subscription VECD.

It starts to get complicated for users who want to access a VM from their desktop/laptop, we do not buy SA and just use the OEM license that comes with the hardware. MS allow you to upgrade to SA (so you can use VECD) upto 90 days after you bought the hardware (after that you have to buy a brand new windows license).

I guess i could just buy a retail version of the OS but that is a lot of £££.

How have you guys licensed your VDI environments.

Many thanks

[rjb2]

The VECD thin client subscription seems like the most expensive option of all. The cost after only 23 months appears to exceed the cost of the desktop version.

Also, I assume the "retail" version doesn't include imaging rights.

[mreferre]

Both analysis from epping / rjb2 are correct as far as I understand the redmond licensing.

Clearly MS doesn't want you to jump onto that wagon... at least not until they are out with Viridian ......

Epping .... retail is a lot £££/$$$/€€€ but at the end of the day it looks to me cheaper than VECD. What you could do is to buy the retail and add the SA on top of it (assuming it's possible.... I don't remember) to overcome the imaging problem it was pointed out.

My bet is that most customers that have been doing this has agreed on a "naif licensing schema" with their MS reps ...... also because VECD (which is the ONLY official method to license this scenario) didn't even exist prior to that. I have seen customers I have been working with going down this path (no I won't mention their names here.... ).

Massimo.

[shaneyoder]

I've been looking into deploying about a dozen Wyse Thin Clients in our manufacturing faciltiy and I agree, the licesing is confusing. But I don't necessarily agree with the pricing comparison of VECD vs a retail copy of Windows. VECD is on SA, it is naturally going to be much more expensive than a retail product. Now I would certainly agree with you that Windows and SA pricing in of itself is out of wack (you do pay alot). But if you upgrade within a 2-3 year cycle it the cost differences usually washes out. From my calculations VECD is about the same cost of a regular Windows Upgrade plus SA. So at least in that regard its fair. If you want SA you pay the same for Windows on a VM or on a PC.

[rjb2]

SA is the problem. I don't think we're alone in the sentiment that ugrading an OS on a 2-3 year cycle is too short. I wonder how many companies really think that they are going to get an OS upgrade within a 2-3 year period? Vista adoption in business appears to be slow from what I can tell; our IT department won't touch it now, and they would be supporters of this:

What our company would like is the option of buying the OS license under an Open agreement without SA like you can with the Office Suite or other Microsoft products. I have defended being a "Microsoft shop" to management for many years but it gets more and more difficult.

As far as SA pricing is concerned, software maintenance and support agreements for enterprise software typically run 18-20%. SA is much higher. The sad fact is, if the fee were more in line with other software, there is a good chance we would gain approval to purchase but paying nearly double is a non-starter.

[Milton21]

look at windows XP embedded as the system you run as a virtual client. only $100.00 a pop.

[rjb2]

Here is a new article that was just posted over at DABCC.com

The Hidden Cost Of VDI - Microsoft Licensing The Problem?

[rjb2]

Hi Milton21

We've been thinking that we would most likely end up with thin clients running XPe which cost quite a bit more than a thin os or linux based client. This makes the cost perception even worse, Microsoft would be getting the revenue for XPe, plus VECD licensing on top of that. Or am I missing something? What does the XPe license buy us as far as VDI is concerned?

[Milton21]

What I am saying (and have not tried) is what if your VM's run XPe. (not sure if this would work but I might try it) VM XPe's

Most VDI setups - Virtualizes simple users. Users that need web & office. Another option. Virtulize the Apps that you are going to run. And run them on the thin client running XPe. Dont have one VM per user. Only high end users need full desktops in a VDI setup.

Why would you want XPe if you are using VDI and hosting full desktops. You would be feeding the microsoft beast twice. One Windows lic for thin client and then one more for your virtual. Ouch!

[Milton21]

I have run XP VDI mostly.

Dont misread the licensing for Vista. Yes you can have 4 Virtual installs but only one person can access those licensed installs.

Interesting feature comming in Windoes 2008. You can simulate a Vista desktop in terminal services. So then you would get that desktop look and feel for about $75.00

[epping]

so what have people done !!

are u seriously running windows embeded inside a VM as your desktop !!

if u have not don vecd what are you all using?

[Milton21]

VECD and Vista Ent with SA are the only OS's Microsoft allows you to run in a VDI setup.

[epping]

I thought you can run a retail version, i am getting MS in and am going to hit them over the head with a bat

[rjb2]

Epping, here is a link to MSFT's document on the subject. If you haven't seen it already, you might want to read it through a few times.

[rjb2]

Here is a link to an article that indicates pricing for the thin client version of the VECD subscription is also being reduced from $196 to $110 per year.

There is also an interesting comment about only needing to licenss the number of virtuals. If this is true, it would make VDI more viable.

from the article here - {size:2}{color:#0000ff}http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&artic...

"Finally, Microsoft is now openly saying that companies only need to buy as many licenses of VECD as it has concurrently virtualized PCs and devices. That is in contrast to Microsoft's earlier official stance that companies needed a VECD license for every single device or PC that is ever run under desktop or application virtualization, an unpopular stance that was hard to enforce.

In practical terms, that means a company that runs virtualized Windows desktops on all 1,000 of its PCs but only 500 at a given time only need to buy 500 VECD licenses. "

[frisbyvlieger]

When I read your comment I thought, "hey I read about this a moment ago"

This link might be of help too or just give some nice information,

Cheers

[rjb2]

yeah, I saw it first on Brian's blog and then googled to see if I could find additional references to the price change for the thin client subscription

[frisbyvlieger]

Well, we both thought that information would come in handy so I'm sure this information will be usefull to some people.

[Milton21]

What does microsoft consider a thin client vs a PC? Some thin clients have a OS on them does this make them a PC? If it is just the invoice name I am going to have my sales rep call the small desktops.

[andy_mac]

A PC is a device that is licensed for vista, although not sure if it requires SA as well.

A thin client is any machine that isn't licensed for vista (e.g. traditional thin client, Linux etc.)

HTH, Andrew