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]

If you look at the Microsoft document on VECD from last Sept, one of the illustrations (pg 5) shows thin client displays with the logos for XPe and CE. My understanding is that XPe and CE are not considered PC OS's. They also define thin clients as being "incapable of running Windows Client OS". Does this help?

[epping]

I have just come off the phone with MS, they do not seem to have any understanding of this technology at all, one guy tried to tell me that RDP was only available in vista enterprise !!!

i am going to have a f2f meeting with their virtualisation expert and a guy from licensing

the big big big problem for me is that it seems you HAVE to use SA to connect to a windows client across a network !!

so you can now install Vista home on your VMware workstation but not on ESX, the only way to connect to a windows client session over the network is to use VECD !!

as far as i can tell this excludeds us from using VDI as we will not go to SA, (it is just not worth the money and is against corporate policy)

[andy_mac]

It's no surprise that customers are confused when the vendor can't even get their own story straight...

The VECD cost has reduced, however the biggest hinderance - as you correctly state - is the requirement for SA. It wouldn't be such a problem for SA if the cost was reduced to a realistic level that reflected the actual turnaround on new desktop OS (5-7 years)...

[rjb2]

My understanding is that you can add SA to an OEM license that comes with a PC for a relatively low overall cost ($50 on top of the discounted OEM) and you end up with the same rights as an Open License (ie. ability to image etc.) that you don't get with the OEM license. This has to be done within a certain number of days after the purchase of the PC.

I've heard that you can purchase retail XP licenses, but this seems more expensive than adding the SA. There is also something called an RDP connector that might be required in the retail XP model. Then, what about licensing activation etc. I think this isn't an ideal situation.

In any case, we look forward to hearing more about what you learn after your f2f?

[epping]

for me the issue is not so much the cost of SA but the political will within my organisation not to go down this route, i want to pay a one off cost and i dont care if it is more expensive.

we will see what they say

[cneville]

Has anyone got any more info from MS on this issue.

If I understand it correctly, If you purchase a FPP copy of Vista Business, install it on a VM on ESX, and want to access it using a thin client, you still need to add sa and the VECD license for thin clients.

This seems to be a big issue for businesses with less then 250 desktops, as the VECD license is not available under open value.

Am I thinking wrong here.

Any comments or clarification would be appreciated.

[andy_mac]

Your analysis is correct.

My guess is that once Viridian is out, we will see some major price reductions in the VDI space. This has been predicted by many, and fits well with MS's form of stifling competition until they are in a position to compete themselves. Bring on Viridian I say....

[cneville]

I just had a long talk with a license expert at MS. According to him, MS is changing the way they will license Vista in virtual environments around the first week of March. This is part of the new open value subscription introduction to the U.S. market. With server 2008 coming out with the virtualization services added, I assume they need to change to allow their virtual server customers to support vista in an smb market. According to him, they are hearing about their current license structure a lot from customers and vendors upset with the current license.

I guess we will wait and see what happens.

[Milton21]

Ms is being ms. Have any of you even tried to buy vecd. You can't. Until they allow people to buy the correct product. My only hope is vmware is looking at this and has already started to build there antitrust law suit. Because the new virtual server will only be 18 bucks. We may also see ms come out with some kind of new cal to run vdi. Keep the vecd and offer a $75 cal. Look at it like this if ms can keep med to small businesses out if the vdi with lic that they can't buy then make vecd cost 3x as much as a cal running virtual server. They will force people to go with them.

[andy_mac]

See my msg above...

[andy_mac]

VMware are bound to pre-empt that kind of move by giving the hypervisor away (It's a commodity now) and continuing to innovate on the value-add services like VDM, vMotion, vCenter etc that MS don't have.

[Milton21]

Here is what I think we will see.

1. MS knows they are not in the Virtual Market yet.

2. Everyone knows that VDI is growing fast.

3. Microsoft will use VDI to get in to the Virtual game. They are selling their Virtual server for $18.00. They will prob sell a cal (like a virtual vista CAL) for it as well. This cal will be around 1/3 the cost of VECD. So they will force people to start running the new virtual server. They might even let you run it in your ESX environment. Why to get people use to using it. Once there are some admin's use to using it. They will start pushing more into the high end data center. Look at the licensing for Windows data center to change a little as well. It will be advantages to run Virtual Server it will cut cost of licensing. Also look at some of the other products that MS is building to support Virtual environment. There new backup software... Can backup running VM's with shadow copy. This I give credit to them looks like a nice feature.

Also if MS does not allow VMware to look inside of the VM's OS. MS will always have an advantage.

[Milton21]

Andy,

Would you say that VMware is fighting the bull that no other company has beat. MS can loose money every time they sell a copy of Virtual Server. They make it up every where else. I just look at what is going on here and see Netscape all over again

[rjb2]

The new VDM pricing includes the Hypervisor, so I think you are right about building around value added products

[andy_mac]

The big difference between Netscape and VMware is that VMware have product differentiation. Of course MS will catch up in time, but it's all about trust in the market.

If you were a Linux shop, would you switch to MS because they now have a crippled hypervisor? - Didn't think so... If I was in that situation I'd be more likely to go down one of the other Xen routes.

The other BIG difference is that MS don't actually have their own Hypervisor - It's licenced from Citrix (nee XenSource) - and this is a massive reason why MS will not end up owning the Virtualization market, because they are competing against two very large and well backed companies in Citrix and EMC/VMware.

The fight will get messy and it's a fact that MS will take market share, but VMware/EMC and Citrix won't roll over easily (Citrix have done well so far with a similar model in licencing the Windows Multiuser kernel back to MS).

Another factor to consider is software quality - is Longhorn with another Vista??? What does it give us that 2003 Server (or Linux) doesn't already???

-Andy

[patrickrouse]

I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that in a few years the entire hypervisor will be built into the chipset, and the money will be in the management software, i.e. Virtual Center. A Hypervisor is already built into the Linux Kernel (KVM), but the technology is still very young compared to VMWare, but with it being part of most linux distributions virtualization will expand even more.

I'm hoping to get some concrete Guest OS licensing info from Microsoft at our MVP Summit in Redmond in April.

Patrick Rouse

Microsoft MVP - Terminal Server

Sales Engineer, Western USA & Canada

Quest Software, Provision Networks Division

(619) 994-5507 mobile

http://www.provisionnetworks.com

[ArainLA]

We also are confused about licensing.

We may end up with 100 new PC's since its so uncertain.

I want to do thin clients with VDI running XP VM's.

Does VECD let you backlevel to XP Pro?

The licensing makes VDI a losing argument for cost savings, maybe not losing but not compelling either.

[andy_mac]

VECD allows the use of "downlevel" versions i.e. XP.

[shaneyoder]

It is my understanding (after a half dozen phone calls with MS) that VECD (which requires SA) can be viewed as the replacement to the OEM/Retail Windows license you are required to have for your Windows Upgrade license you have on SA. Since it is an "upgrade" license, you must have a qualifying license on your system before you can apply the Vista Upgrade SA license. A thin client does not have a qualifying OEM/Retail Windows license on it. So, you can buy VECD which is your Retail license that qualifies you for the Vista Upgrade. Now if you are the sort of company that does desktop rollouts every 2-3 years. Then maybe this whole licensing scheme can save you some money. We only have 200 workstations so it works well for us. But, many people here are much larger and they don't do workstation upgrades that often. Many are on a 3-5 year cycle. In that case, the SA model on a pure cost perspective is a lost cause. You end up paying for SA that you never use.

We are going down the VECD route because it will save us money in the long run. I do agree that MS's licensing model is completely wacked! Most people at MS have never heard of VECD. It took a day and a half for the licensing group to give me the explanation that I gave above.

[rcsteamboat]

I don't see how VECD will save money in the long run. The cost is over $100 per year per thin client device. If you keep your thin client device for 6-years, that is close to $700 for the privilege of using Vista. Compare that to the OEM Vista costs at what? $150? Am I missing something here?