Microsoft licensing & thin client

[Dave_O]

Having read much about the licensing issues surrounding VDI and in particular the article about the Prudential implementation. How about for those like me who don't leverage SA or any other, buy them every year packages:-

Buy a thin client eg Wyse V10L, buy a Vista Business OEM license, tie the VM to the thin client & the OEM license. Add a sprinkling of VECD if required (OK I know its per month).

Viola

The Microsoft prefered solution (using FPP) makes the unit cost of the above solution (including keyboard, mouse & monitor) a little under £600 (UK) that's before putting in the infrastructure (Which in my case is around £120 per VM)! I can get a Dell 755 for under £500! Suddenly VDI doesn't seem that appealing.

[TomHowarth]

Dave, initial outlay budget cost are only part of the story, you have to look over the entire lifecycle of the installation. and that includes soft (or traditionally hidden cost items)

for example a 4 host ESX VDI solutions (2/4 CPU and 16GB with a CX320) could host say 200 guests.

200 Dell desktops are a more significant cost to run that 200 TC's (lower management costs, they die, swap out for a preconfigured unit, (User has not lost work inadvertantly saved on local device))

Standard look and feel, the abiltity to quickly deploy new machines to new users with out having to visit desks.

single management environment.

lower power consumption (this is including the power output of the ESX implementation, (even better now that 3.5 has DPM (distrubuted power management)

these are the benefits that VDI brings to the table.

true the initial cost of the desktop devices may seem steep. however there are ways and means of lowering this cost -drop me a PM if you are interesting in taking this further I am UK based.

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

[mreferre]

Tom is right ..... it's TCA (total cost of acquisition) Vs TCO (total cost of ownership).

For what it is worth .... even 30 one-way entry level servers will cost you less than 2 or 3 x high-end systems (with VI3, with a shared storage etc etc) to run 30 vm's ....... but no matter what... it's damn better to run 30 vm's on 2 systems than 30 small servers.....

Granted ...... I know that trying to do a parallel of server virtualization and client virtualization is a bit of a stretch ..... but it's going to happen I think...

Massimo.

[ppushor]

I know how you feel Dave. As the poster above me wrote you really do need to look at the entire lifecycle cost, but for me the other big issue is that thin clients are becoming less "thin" each year - in terms of initial cost and cost to maintain.

If you are interested in a truly "thin" thin client, check out Pano Logic - . They are fronted by the founder and ex-ceo of XenSource. If you are interested in the product at any level, let me know. It was the frustration with the "fat" thin client that brought me to these people.

---

Patrick Pushor, Enterprise Consultant

Big Hat Group, Inc. (http://www.bighatgroup.com)

[Dave_O]

Thank you both for your responses. I particularly enjoyed reading Massimo's article, many of the issues and in particular the Microsoft licensing, ring true. We've bought the kit (and the tee-shirt) and are fully committed to VDI, but lament the initial setup costs. Yes the longer term benefits, which we are already experiencing are there, but being in a cost conscious environemt, it is difficult to see beyond the here and now.

On a side note, does anyone have an update on Microsoft's non-software assurance VECD offering? Will Microsoft change it's stance (by stance I mean cost) on VM licensing? Having read several articles (all of which are conflicting) in which it is sugested that Microsoft are happy to maintain the status quo wrt VM licensing to allow TS to gain more momentum and to try and slow the uptake of VDI until their product is more mature.

[TomHowarth]

On a side note, does anyone have an update on Microsoft's non-software assurance VECD offering? Will Microsoft change it's stance (by stance I mean cost) on VM licensing? Having read several articles (all of which are conflicting) in which it is sugested that Microsoft are happy to maintain the status quo wrt VM licensing to allow TS to gain more momentum and to try and slow the uptake of VDI until their product is more mature.

I personally think you have hit the nail on the head, especially now that User based TS connections are to be monitored and enforced under 2008 TS, they have a significant amount of revenue to gather there, when people start to upgrade. however I beleive that MS will review their licensing structure on release of Hype-V.

Tom Howarth

VMware Communities User Moderator

[ppushor]

Heh. Hype-v. Freudian slip or simple error? :smileylaugh:

---

Patrick Pushor, Enterprise Consultant

Big Hat Group, Inc. (http://www.bighatgroup.com)

[epping]

hi

"buy a Vista Business OEM license"

this is not required, u just need the vecd thin client license and that covers you. should make your TOC a bit better

[Dave_O]

You know after many hours of research this is the conclusion I came to as well. Microsoft certainly doesn't make this clear. My understanding is:-

To use a VM legally you need to be part of a Select/Open/Enterprise agreement and purchase DTA-00008 VECD for thin client (non-SA) or DSA-00041 VECD (SA). Now both of these are monthly subscriptions the first is for thin client devices and the second (cheaper) option is if you have SA. So as an example to license 80 VMs using a thin client device for one year you buy 80 x 12 x unit cost of DTA-00008. Much as I hate non-perpetual licenses, this is the only way forwards for us.

Looking at the FPP cost of Vista I calculate that it would take approximately 8/9 years before we start to lose money (FPP v VEDC annual license) by which time I'll either have retired or some other technology like neuro-virtualisation will have come along where you have to license part of your brain to Microsoft........ Sorry slipped into another dimension for a moment there. Or did I???

[mreferre]

Dave..... just one side note.... with VECD you don't license the vm's ..... but you license the access device. If you have 80 vm's and 80 TC's than there is no problem ..... but if the number is different (for some reasons) ... you need to count (and license) the TC's ..

Massimo.

P.S. the fundamental problem is that MS doesn't want to move away from the status quo (i.e. Desktops with OEM licenses) ... because changing the business model is always very difficult.... Windows OEM licenses is a certain / predictable stream ...... VECD is open to be cracked plus when you re-invent your client infrastructure someone might also imagine insane ideas of switching to Linux etc etc etc ......

[Dave_O]

I'm fine now with thin client machines within the organisation. Where the real fun starts is when you want to access VDI from home via a VPN connection or some other remote access method.

Now the official line is (apparently) that you have to have software assurance to license machines use from home. If you don't have software assurance then, get this, you have to RDP to your work PC (physical one that is) and then connect to the broker from there to run your VM???? So 3 desktops in one. I really have slipped into the twighlight zone. Come on Microsoft get real! Here's an idea for the licensing model... example-- 20 desktop VMs available to 50 home users = 20 VECD licenses (as you can only access at most 20 VMs, does it really matter who is accessing and from where?) job done.

[vheff]

Hi all,

I'm currently going through the process of licensing an environment where we are using VDM 2.0 for around 12 x virtual desktops running Windows XP. Users will be accessing them using Wyse thin clients (V10L) but will also need to access them from home. After speaking to our software supplier, they suggested either VECD (DTA-00008) but as pointed out this is not per VM, it's per thin client device. The other option they suggested is 66J-06359 (boxed product), which is slightly more expensive but is a one-off purchase. Does anyone know if the boxed product would be suitable for licensing each VM, thus enabling access from any device (i.e. home, thin client, etc)?

Ray

[MrBiscuit]

I believe if you puchase the retail license you still need to purchase the yearly SA in that situation.

Of course I could be wrong, so don't take this as gospel.

[vheff]

This is the official response I received from Microsoft:

There are 2 ways of licensing this type of scenario. The first would be to purchase an individual license for each virtual Operating System Environment (OSE) on the server and for each device that is accessing one of these virtual OSEs. This is not normally the ideal solution as the licenses for the installations in the virtual OSEs on the server would need to be purchased as full FPP licenses as you cannot purchase an upgrade because there is no underlying operating system in the virtual environments. As well as this, you would need a full FPP license for each thin client device as each of these is accessing a virtual OSE and would need a license, and again, there is no uundeerlying operating system.

There is another option which is called Vista Enterprise Centralised Desktop (VECD). This is a subscriiption available through most Volume License agreements (except Open) and you need to purchase one subscription license for VECD for each Thin Client device. This allows you to create and store an unlimited number of virtual OSEs on a server and each thin client device is allowed to access up to 4 virtual OSEs on the server at any one time.

Based on option 2, it states "This allows you to create and store an unlimited number of virtual OSE's on a server", therefore if you are licensing the thin-client and you are allowed to run unlimited virtual desktops on the server, then remote access shouldn't be an issue. You would assume that if you are connecting remotely, you are connecting from a licensed Windows machine. This is just covering you use thin-clients which are normally unlicensed.

What do you think?

[MrBiscuit]

The way I understand that licensing agreement to work is that you must license each device that connects to the environment, so you would have to buy a 2 licenses for each user that connects from home assuming they had a terminal in the office and another at home. Just because your home desktop that you could remote in from has a valid license for itself doesn't mean you are allowed to use it to connect to the VDI environment - it's not like terminal services.

You should also note that the licenses which apply for thin clients are entirely separate than those for desktops, and unless the desktop is less than 90 days old you cannot simply add SA to the OEM licesnse to acheive the same end.

[vheff]

My arguement against Microsoft would be this. Currently I have a PC in the office with Windows Vista licensed to it, and I don't need an extra license to RDP into it when I get home (via VPN). Why then, if I've already licensed a thin-client with Vista do I need to purchase another license to enable me to RDP to it from home. VDM is purely a mechanism using RDP to access the machine.

I'm supprised that Microsoft haven't cleared this up by now, afterall they are going to be releasing Hyper-V, Citrix will have XenDesktop, and the point of virtualising the desktop is to reduce costs. I know that I won't get budget approval to pay twice for every virtual desktop.

I've got a feeling that their licensing terms are going to be chaning again and again until they get some common sense. If I find out any more I'll let you know.