View Full Version : Microsoft Software Licensing
DanSimpson-P1 Technology
6th March 2009, 13:14
How does everyone feel about licensing...? More in particular Microsoft's Licensing model?
Did you know:
Registered Charities can get ultra low pricing for many of the Microsoft products?
You get lower rates for buying in bulk, like an Open Business Agreement
Speading costs using Software Assurance can be a good long term investment.
These are just some topics - I am working with Microsoft at the moment on Licensing and am really interested in what the business community has to say about it?
And what about software as a Service, would you pay say £1 a time to work on a Microsoft Application?
computer storm
6th March 2009, 18:20
The new licensing models are quite good, its about time they updated so that you can just by one CAL at a time instead of 5. Most charities do not know that they can get the software from Microsoft at a discount rate. I helped a charity in Edinburgh get there software from Microsoft at a fantastic price. Also some company's like Dell & HP will give charities discounts on Hardware as well if they call them.
KM-Tiger
6th March 2009, 18:27
How does everyone feel about licensing...?
I cannot think of a good business reason for paying licensing fees. Nor can my clients.
And what about software as a Service, would you pay say £1 a time to work on a Microsoft Application?
£1 against nil. Are you serious?
DanSimpson-P1 Technology
6th March 2009, 18:43
Sorry, I am a little confused. You say you can not see a good business reason to pay licensing Fees.
Which license fee's are you referring too?
Obviously, the business reason for paying is so that you are not using software illegally.
ken_uk
6th March 2009, 18:54
They are overpriced, considering how many people use microsoft they could easily have dropped the prices considerably.
Also, considering how they have stolen other peoples work, engaged in unfair practises and considered themselves above the law before, they are definately charging to much.
As for software as a service for microsoft products, that may be the way they want to go, as it would give them more longer term revenue, but it would be the final nail in the coffin if microsoft tried that stunt.
They need to lower prices, increase quality, and behave responsibly.
dave_n
6th March 2009, 19:19
i think the problem you will get on any forum when asking about ms licensing is the comparison with open source stuff.
Most people only know ms's desktop software....the real value of ms licensing comes when you compare the server apps to the competition - eg ms crm v siebel, sharepoint v documentum.
Esk247
6th March 2009, 22:41
price is a big factor for me...considering the short lifespan of the software.
as mentioned.. considering the amount of customers they have, i'm sure they could reduce the price of everyday products e.g. office, windows itself. the ordinary home user is paying over and above what is required considering there are now alot of free alternatives to choose from..and the fact that microsoft products are by no means error proof!
leemason
7th March 2009, 07:58
Also M$ provides large discounts for the education sector. The reason for this is obvious as they want to get people using their software early so it becomes their choice of software for life.
On another point I do not see why licenses cannot be transferable. Once you have purchased the software it should be yours. At present I believe that you are not able to sell software that you have purchased as technically it's not actually yours to sell.
Also in terms of O/S licenses OEM licenses come with a computer and again cannot be transfered. Why should it be that you have to rebuy an O/S license for a new PC if you already have a license on an old PC which could be used (assuming you don't use both at once)? This sounds like a restrictive trade practice (or would be in any other industry).
FireFleur
7th March 2009, 09:07
>>> Obviously, the business reason for paying is so that you are not using software illegally.
You are aware that there is a lot of freeware out there, and even software that is not only free but where the source code is open to inspection and modification. MS use some for their TCP/IP stack, and I don't think they paid a brass razoo for it. So, is MS not using software legally?
The licence doesn't ask for payment in this instance, just accreditation, but it has been in most versions of the MS operating system for years, perhaps you could tell us how much MS paid for that so they were all legal and aboveboard :)
Open source, unix pooms pooms a'ready :)
The IT Dept
7th March 2009, 11:16
OEM software is cheaper than retail software - which is why you aren't allowed to transfer it.
Microsoft will retain their monopoly until Open Source becomes easier to use. Linux, for instance, will never replace Windows until it becomes obvious how to install it. Almost anyone could set up a PC with Windows, but setting up Linux seems to be deliberately obtuse.
Microsoft could make even more money though, if they would simplify their licensing structure. It is way too complex and labrynthian.
leemason
7th March 2009, 12:37
OEM software is cheaper than retail software - which is why you aren't allowed to transfer it.
Microsoft will retain their monopoly until Open Source becomes easier to use. Linux, for instance, will never replace Windows until it becomes obvious how to install it. Almost anyone could set up a PC with Windows, but setting up Linux seems to be deliberately obtuse.
Microsoft could make even more money though, if they would simplify their licensing structure. It is way too complex and labrynthian.
It may be cheaper but you have still purchased it. If I buy something at the Supermarket on a buy one get one free, and then sell one in Ebay it's not illegal, so why is using a software license that you already won illegal. Microsoft don't do OEM software cheaper because they want to be nice to people. They do it to lock people into the O/S forever.
I have recently installed Mandriva Linux Powerpack 2009 and I pretty much had to just select the regional settings for UK and that was it. When I came to install my Lexmark C532n printer drivers I had to scramble to find the driver disk for Windows. The CUPS printing system on Mandriva just knew about it, installed the correct drivers from an online repository and away I went. When I wanted an Office suite on Windows I had spend more money on MS-Office. It was installed by default (OpenOffice) on Mandriva. I could list everything else that was installed as standard or just installed itself when I firsted used it but that would get boring.
The main problem with migrating away from Windows is that people are just simply used to using it and getting along with its behaviour. Vista provides a great opportunity for users to migrate over to Linux as it's no greater a step from XP to Linux that from XP to Vista. I would agree that some Windows products are not available for Linux - this needs some work - but there are very often good alternatives (i.e. Nero DVD burner vs K3B on Linux, etc).
The IT Dept
7th March 2009, 12:47
I have recently installed Mandriva Linux Powerpack 2009 and I pretty much had to just select the regional settings for UK and that was it.
Leemason, That's likely to be because you've paid for Mandriva. The point of Linux was supposed to be that it is a free open-source alternative to MS - but it is still very much techie geeky stuff.
An OEM version of Windows is effectively free to you - on the understanding that you won't transfer it. (If you ask Dell to ship a PC without Windows they'll charge you extra!)
When you buy OEM software you accept the limitations - one of which is that it is non-transferable.
Microsoft will retain their monopoly until someone comes along with a suitable alternative and the market forces will decide who wins. Linux is way off becoming the OS of choice for Joe Bloggs.
price is a big factor for me...considering the short lifespan of the software.
as mentioned.. considering the amount of customers they have, i'm sure they could reduce the price of everyday products e.g. office, windows itself. the ordinary home user is paying over and above what is required considering there are now alot of free alternatives to choose from..and the fact that microsoft products are by no means error proof!
Whats a short lifespan? I know of plenty of businesses who still use Office 97 on machines with Windows 98 as the OS. It works fine for them. Office 97 does all they require so why change? A FTSE 100 company was still using NT4 as its standard desktop OS in 2006. They have had 8+ years use out of the software.
Esk247
7th March 2009, 15:21
Whats a short lifespan? I know of plenty of businesses who still use Office 97 on machines with Windows 98 as the OS. It works fine for them. Office 97 does all they require so why change? A FTSE 100 company was still using NT4 as its standard desktop OS in 2006. They have had 8+ years use out of the software.
you can still use the older software yes..but you have compatibility issues when you take your work outside of your office.
i shall use the example i have the most problem with: NHS to ESK247 computers..my laptop is on vista..they are on xp...it means that when transferring large amounts of data between the different programs, office, windows etc etc i have lots of conversions to do..they dont just open as normal. i have to convert to word 2008 or whatever and then back to word 2000 for saving to the usb pen when i want to take it to the hospital.
the same occurs with one of my customers..he's using word from 1998 or something and i'm on the latest because i have to be..for some reason i cannot just open his files! i have to convert to the latest word then back again when i send him amendments.
this is what i mean by short lifespan..same can be said now for adobe! i can no longer edit Flash files..my software is now 2 years old! i need the latest Flash MX or whatever it is now! I've got to replace everything to edit files.
KM-Tiger
7th March 2009, 16:00
The point of Linux was supposed to be that it is a free open-source alternative to MS - but it is still very much techie geeky stuff.
Here is an experiment even children can try at home:
Remove your drink from the PC's cup holder and place safely on desk or table .
Insert a Ubuntu (http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download) CD* in the slot where your drink was. (Ask an adult if you are not sure which way up the CD should be)
Reboot.
Now you are using Ubuntu. Try out the browser and check that Ubuntu is really free of charge here (http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/philosophy).
*You can get a Ubuntu ISO torrent at the same time as downloading your MP3's. Careful when you burn, though, as ISO's are different to MP3's.
FireFleur
7th March 2009, 16:09
Linux is a kernel, it wasn't meant to be free, it was meant to be hacked on.
The GPL is all about Stallman's vision of freedom of code, Linus just got seduced because Hurd was not done :)
And Linux based systems are not the reserve of the geeky, whoever they are. Quite a few are created for general use by people who don't know an EAX register from a CL.
Intentionality and teleological affect are two different things.
leemason
8th March 2009, 07:12
Leemason, That's likely to be because you've paid for Mandriva. The point of Linux was supposed to be that it is a free open-source alternative to MS - but it is still very much techie geeky stuff.
An OEM version of Windows is effectively free to you - on the understanding that you won't transfer it. (If you ask Dell to ship a PC without Windows they'll charge you extra!)
When you buy OEM software you accept the limitations - one of which is that it is non-transferable.
Microsoft will retain their monopoly until someone comes along with a suitable alternative and the market forces will decide who wins. Linux is way off becoming the OS of choice for Joe Bloggs.
Mandriva has a number of versions:
Mandriva One - The live DVD bootable version
Mandriva free edition - This is the fully Open Source one
Mandriva Powerpack edition - This is chargeable
As I subscribe to the Powerpack edition I did pay for mine. However I have installed the free version for others and again it was no problem to setup. Linux is not meant to be free as in "free beer" it's free as in "freedom". I am no Open Source fanatic who insists on everything being totally free - I see the point in paying for some things.
OEM software is not free - a significant part of the cost of a new budget PC is the MS license, it's just that in most cases you have no choice. OEM licenses are cheaper but I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use an OEM license yourself on another piece of hardware that you purchase.
Some time ago Dell started to sell pre-installed Linux PCs until MS threatened to withdraw their OEM licensing agreement. The Linux based PCs were about £50.00 cheaper that the MS OEM installed PCs.
What is needed is EU legislation to ensure that in Europe anyway PC manufacturers MUST sell O/S free hardware. Yes they can sell pre-installed systems as well, I have no problem with that, but the choice should be there. I don't want to have to buy a laptop with Vista on it only to overwrite it with my own choice of O/S.
There is a suitable alternative but MS are fighting tooth and claw to stop it.
What is needed is EU legislation to ensure that in Europe anyway PC manufacturers MUST sell O/S free hardware. Yes they can sell pre-installed systems as well, I have no problem with that, but the choice should be there. I don't want to have to buy a laptop with Vista on it only to overwrite it with my own choice of O/S.
There is a suitable alternative but MS are fighting tooth and claw to stop it.
There are plenty of places you can buy a laptop without an OS. I would point out its impossiblle to buy a Mac without an OS.
I want to buy a Maserati Quattroporte without the engine becasue I will replace the engine in it with a Chevy LS7. I shouldnt be forced to pay for an engine I will never use. I will be using a diffrent ECU so I shouldnt be forced to buy that either.
leemason
8th March 2009, 09:18
I want to buy a Maserati Quattroporte without the engine becasue I will replace the engine in it with a Chevy LS7. I shouldnt be forced to pay for an engine I will never use. I will be using a diffrent ECU so I shouldnt be forced to buy that either.
Not quite the same. The MS dominance of hardware manufacturers would be like having all car manufacturers and models to use a Ford 1.0 litre engine.
leemason
8th March 2009, 09:18
I recently had to setup a PC with Vista. Really nasty O/S. Whenever I installed software on it that required anything to be put on the desktop the screen flashed, went black, and the came back to life. The first time I booted the system (from new) I got a blue screen crash and during a couple of other reboots the system hung. What on earth is that all about? I don't think it was a hardware problem because all seems to work OK once it was booted and it worked OK from a Mandriva Oone live CD.
Not quite the same. The MS dominance of hardware manufacturers would be like having all car manufacturers and models to use a Ford 1.0 litre engine.
Microsoft has hardly any influence the hardware manufacturers. Intel couldnt give a dammn what OS is used on its procesors. Aopen dont care what what OS runs on their miniPC. Asus dont care what OS is used with their motherboards. Compal and Quanta dont care what OS is used with their laptops.
Its the assemblers and box shifters who are influenced by MS. Its hardly suprising that most opt to sell with an MS OS. With Linux at 1%? penertration in the desktop market they arent going to shift too many boxes with it installed. A far better bet would be to force Apple to licence its OS to others. They at least have a better penetration in the market.
Dell sell the XPS laptop range with Ubuntu preinstalled by the way.