Joe,

"By contrast, extended support--through April 11, 2007--is available for Vista Enterprise." (Emphasis added.)

Sounds like "distended" support to me.

--rj
OakLeaf Systems

"With Vista, the Enterprise version can only be purchased through volume licensing and Software Assurance, which adds the price plus X to the software's cost. The potential cost increase is significant."

Um, DUH?! This is news?

What do you think Windows Vista Enterprise actually is???

It's Windows Vista Business with different license rights (the ability to run an extra 4 VM's on the same licensed computer), and includes Bitlocker, and the Subsystem for UNIX Applications (SUA). Also, with Software Assurance, because you get downgrade rights, you can run Windows XP Professional within those VM's for legacy software. It IS NOT the same as Vista Ultimate, nor does it supercede the functionality of Vista Ultimate. It has ALWAYS ONLY been available via volume licensing! Volume licensing isn't designed for companies that are buying new computers - it's designed for companies that are upgrading their software on systems that can already run the latest software.

"some businesses looking for Vista Enterprise benefits are sticking with XP or going to Vista Ultimate."

....and by their stupidity, they won't get them!

"so the buyer's acquisition cost isn't just for the Vista Enterprise license plus Software Assurance. There is cost for the preloaded�later to be discarded�operating system."

Sorry to burst your bubble but this is 100% WRONG! OEM software customers that buy Vista Business with new computers can buy Software Assurance within 90 days of purchase and THEY WILL RECEIVE VISTA ENTERPRISE WITHOUT PAYING FOR AN ADDITIONAL LICENSE! Call a Microsoft Licensing MVP and confirm that if you don't believe me. Software Assurance can be added to OEM software, with the only limitation being that you don't get the option to spread payments over your contract.

"several OEMs can preload customers' software image acquired through software licensing."

WTF?! Where the hell did you pick that up? That is ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE! Volume licensing software is available as UPGRADES ONLY!! You can't preload any volume licensed software on new machines.

....looks like the Wilcox FUD machine has gone into overdrive today.

Sorry to say chips, but Joe already beat your record.

"Microsoft's Vista Enterprise licensing changes mean some businesses will adopt something else. Could it be Linux? The answer is surprising."

So what was the answer? Maybe I read through the article too fast but you never provided any answer to this question. The rest of the post has absolutely nothing to do with this question.

@Jim

This is just the Joe FUD machine working again.

"Microsoft's Vista Enterprise licensing changes"

Why this is FUD:

There are no changes to Windows Vista Enterprise licensing. The licensing has been this way ever since Windows Vista Enterprise had become RTM. This is a new product that Microsoft had no equal to before. Previously, Windows XP Professional was available through volume licensing, and provided none of the extra benefits over it's regularly-licensed version that Windows Vista Enterprise provides over Vista Business. Windows Vista Enterprise (as well as Software Assurance) is completely optional, as are the requisite fees. Microsoft saw fit to throw in extra bonuses for Software Assurance customers over what was included in the XP timeframe and that's what it equated to - Vista Enterprise.

Also, Windows Vista Business [Upgrade] is still the defacto version that is included in volume licensed versions. There are no license changes between it and when Windows XP Professional was available through volume licensing. Software Assurance was never about getting added operating system features, but Microsoft changed their tune with the release of Vista, and yet everybody (read: the biased anti-Microsoft media) has a gripe with it.

One of the major reasons to purchase the desktop OS via a volume license agreement is the ability to legally image (ghost) the OS and duplicate that image on other desktops. This is a huge benefit for mid to large corporations. It allows them to standardize their desktop deployments and reduce total cost of ownership.

i love how one week, the haters talk about how microsoft mulit-year licensing is D E A D. Then we see reality the next week, on a graphic like this one, showing 40% of revenue comes from these contracts.

From the Yahoo/Microsoft board- just a couple of clips

I would bet the Eu will rake MSFT...

... for non-competitive behaviour. Ballmer has made it perfectly clear he talks a good game regarding respect for intellectual property but the 6826744 patent issue piled on top of the Eolas and Burst technologies behaviour by MSFT has most likely pushed the EU regulator's patience beyond the breaking point. Lump that in with Microsoft's recent failed efforts to stuff the ballot on the OOXML issue for ISO fast track ( www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=1764 ) and you have a governmental body not pleased by Microsoft's continuing bully and bait tactics.

So, September 2 will be a pile-driver of a strike against Microsoft XML document viability in international interoperative systems.

Anyone want to argue with that? Another wishful thought? Another MSFT generated rosy view that ends up a nightmare?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

MSFT Criminal?

I wouldn't go so far as to brand the entire organization as criminal. Just those people who worked on the Longhorn etcetera projects several years ago who know what happened to the web-platform capabilities then that were gutted once 6826521 was granted in November 2004.

THOSE are criminals because they are stealing shareholder money and spending it in R&D to build failed workarounds that have yet to be shown to the public or to journalists.

I think the journalistic sandbagging is at an end and the stories about to come out will curl your little frayed ends.

Joe,

You have been using Microsoft Vista since February 2006 but you still condemn it .

Why no you switch to a Linux Desktop and Open Office and tell us your daily experience with LInux

Joe, please do not talk about Microsoft Volume Licensing and Software Asssurance to us.

Firstly, you lack of enterprise experince and you have not been engaging in negotitation of Volume Licesning with Microsoft.

Secondly , you do not do your research and homework in details .

Thirdly , you have no shame to publish your unfounded argumement

You are the right candidate to work with Laura DiDio of Gartner Group

Remember .. " Little knowledge is dangerous .." , try to read and research more ...

Eder wrote: "Joe, please do not talk about Microsoft Volume Licensing and Software Asssurance to us."

Eder,

It's easy to make a broad statement "you do not do your research and homework in details." Please, identify what is factually wrong with the post. I do want to know about it.

As for doing research, no disrespect intended, bu Laura DiDio doesn't work for Gartner Group. She's with Yankee Group.

Thanks,

Joe

"It's easy to make a broad statement "you do not do your research and homework in details." Please, identify what is factually wrong with the post. I do want to know about it."

What about the points I made - especially the glaring one about not having to buy a Vista Enterprise license when you buy Vista Business OEM with a new system with Software Assurance added on?? (Yes you can add Software Assurance to OEM software)

The point that you make to the contrary seems to be the whole basis of your article and yet it's completely wrong. You should really know that THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A WINDOWS VISTA ENTERPRISE LICENSE! It is what is referred to as a "Windows client desktop license" purchased through volume licensing (which is in fact Windows Vista Business), with Software Assurance added on, either as an add-on for a license program that doesn't include it (like Open License), or in one of the bundled licensing programs, such as Open Value. There is no Vista Enterprise specific license to purchase - it's merely a benefit of the Software Assurance when it's added on to an existing volume license Vista Business ("client desktop") license.

"One of the major reasons to purchase the desktop OS via a volume license agreement is the ability to legally image (ghost) the OS and duplicate that image on other desktops. This is a huge benefit for mid to large corporations. It allows them to standardize their desktop deployments and reduce total cost of ownership."

Yes, yes. Everybody knows that. Remember that volume licensing is still only for UPGRADE licenses though - they are NOT full version licenses. BDD 2007 allows you to streamline the upgrade process on pre-existing machines using imaging, as well as full license images. It also includes USMT (User State Migration Tools) to copy over user settings and files in the event that a business needs to reformat systems during deployment. BDD will also copy back the USMT data during the deployment process. AFAIK volume licenses don't actually perform the upgrade-compliancy check as do retail versions because of business IT practises, but it is still a requirement of the licensing. OEM's are not allowed to preinstall it on behalf of a customer though, because they are NOT FULL LICENSES (then there's the legality issues with an OEM system builder getting access to a company's software). That's the flaw that I was pointing out about Joe's article.

Waethorn wrote: "Sorry to burst your bubble but this is 100% WRONG!"

Hi, Waethorn,

The 90 days is standard fare; it has been for some time.

Enterprise isn't free, but an upgrade right through Software Assurance. Company pays at least through SA.

You're right that SA is designed for upgrades. But that's not how most businesses buy Windows. They purchase on new PCs. So this is a forced move to Software Assurance. Rather than just pay for Vista, the business must take on the extra cost of Software Assurance to get Enterprise.

OEMs can and do Vista Enterprise preload images for their customers, which activate the software with their own volume-licensing key. Dell started doing this last November, even before the first official Vista PCs shipped: http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/vista/the_waiting_game.html.

As for this being old news, now is when it matters--not last year. The first wave of Vista upgrades were expected to start right about now, so the topic is timely now.

Thanks,

Joe

"I had wondered if the steep cost of Software Assurance would drive some businesses to adopt Linux or even Mac OS X as alternatives."

Why is this FUD:

Software Assurance is the cheapest way to keep upgrading your software over extended computer lifespans. You don't need to buy new licenses when your Software Assurance runs out either - you can just renew your Software Assurance contract. For each new computer that you plan to include Software Assurance with, you only need to buy 1 operating system license so long as it's whatever the current **OEM** business-grade Windows version is (it used to be XP Professional, but now it's Vista Business). If your currently installed version of Windows is out of date, you need to buy a volume license (which is an upgrade) FIRST, before buying Software Assurance. It's not that difficult to understand really. If you are buying new computers, the cheapest way to get Software Assurance is to just add it to your OEM license, which is possible up to 90 days after the computer purchase. OEM licensing is also the cheapest way to buy Windows, but you have to buy a whole computer to get it.

"Vista Enterprise includes crucial networking and security features not available in Vista....Business versions."

Why this is FUD:

Vista Enterprise only includes 4 major features over Vista Business. Here they are:

1) Bitlocker - also available in Vista Ultimate
2) VM licensing for 4 additional licenses via Virtual PC Express (also includes Windows XP Pro because of previous version rights in Software Assurance)
3) Subsystem for UNIX Applications (SUA)
4) Multilanguage support (MUI) - also available in Vista Ultimate

Aside from those features, it is identical to Vista Business available in volume licensing programs. The networking features are identical. The only difference in security is Bitlocker.

"Additionally, essential Vista deployments are now only available through Software Assurance."

Do you mean Vista Enterprise? IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN!

Deployment tools are readily available for businesses - BDD 2007 is an amazing deployment platform and is available freely to anybody. The Desktop Optimization Pack just features extra planning tools and a few miscellaneous utilities.

"Enterprise isn't free, but an upgrade right through Software Assurance. Company pays at least through SA."

As I stated also.

"You're right that SA is designed for upgrades. But that's not how most businesses buy Windows. They purchase on new PCs. So this is a forced move to Software Assurance. Rather than just pay for Vista, the business must take on the extra cost of Software Assurance to get Enterprise"

My point is that you are completely incorrect in stating that you need to add a volume license to get Software Assurance on top of the purchase of a PC with a preinstalled operating system. You can add Software Assurance to OEM software WITHOUT a volume license. The extra cost is minimal considering the additional 4 licenses for VM use. Imagine if you actually had to pay for all 4 additional VM licenses on top of the physical machine license....(you would have to if you didn't pay for SA)

This is what you originally said:

"Microsoft discourages OEMs from shipping PCs without operating systems, so the buyer's acquisition cost isn't just for the Vista Enterprise license plus Software Assurance. There is cost for the preloaded�later to be discarded�operating system."

Companies that buy Vista Business OEM and Software Assurance within the 90 days don't need to buy a volume license whatsoever. This is the time when resellers and IT admins should be saying "Hey you should add Software Assurance to these purchases. Look at all the benefits you get!" instead of waiting until after the 90 days is up. Most IT admins, resellers, and system builders know this already, and it's a point that Microsoft pushes in their partner marketing collateral and sales guides. That said, it is hardly a "forced upgrade", considering the few extra features that Vista Enterprise offers over Vista Business. For a business that actually needs that extra functionality, the few extra bucks for SA on top of the price of the system would be welcome because SA provides a much bigger lot of benefits than Vista Enterprise does over Business.

"OEMs can and do Vista Enterprise preload images for their customers"

And how do they get by the upgrade requirement? Are they required to investigate the company's previous license acquisitions?

"activate the software with their own volume-licensing key."

Who's key - the OEM's or the customer's? Who does the activation? (your sentence is open to symantic interpretation)

There is also a caveat pertaining to the using of so-called " branded open-source" system .

For example :

1) You need to purchase second-year onward software maintenance to entitle you to upgrade/patch your Red Hat Enterprise ES/AS Linux

2) However , you don't need to pay anything to continuously to patch your Windows Server

I think using Windows Server has an adavantage that require zero investment in software patching

The real answer isn't that surprising - that Microsoft's Licensing options are now so arcane that you need a PhD in Voodoo Software Purchasing to know what it is you're trying to get. I mean - 5 versions of Vista? 9 Versions of Office 2007? 10 Versions of Visual Studio 2005?

@Waethorn:
I read the article twice and read your posts. And for the life of me, i can't wrap my head around what you'll are saying.

JOE WILCOX Says:
"What I've heard from a couple of companies is that they could specify that all new machines be purchased with Vista Ultimate, and then they'll drop SA on Windows, or drop Windows client coverage in their [Enterprise Agreement]," DeGroot said."

@_:
"Businesses saying no to Vista still
Enterprises not following through on formerly 'aggressive' OS deployment plans"

Those "fairly aggressive" deployment plans, however, failed to materialize because of both "the intricacies of running such large, complex and distributed corporate environments" and "wariness," Gray wrote.

"Many of the IT pros we've spoken with feel like they've just completed their OS migration project and are wary of starting a new one anytime soon," Gray wrote.

" Another reason for the Vista delay is the operating system's limited compatibility with existing applications." ...

http://tinyurl.com/3b784l

Hey Joe,

The thing is you are KID to talk about the eco-system which MS built in last 30+ yrs.

Waethorn : "Software Assurance is the cheapest way to keep upgrading your software over extended computer lifespans."

Sorry, Waethorn, that's nor true. The break-even point, where Software Assurance costs more than full price, is three-and-a-half years, according to Microsoft. For the many, many businesses on cycles of four years or more, SA is no bargain. Yet Microsoft is making them take SA if they want Vista Enterprises.

As for the feature differences with Vista Business, it's not the how many, but what they are. Windows XP Pro features are all available, whether through OEM or volume licensing. Microsoft holds back some crucial business features to Enterprise; that's a big change. Additionally, important deployment tools, like MDOP, are now only available through Software Assurance. How is "cheapest," if something I didn't pay for before requires a long-term additional cost contract with Microsoft?

Joe

sorry joe, but there are big flaws in the logic of your last comment.

"How is "cheapest," if something I didn't pay for before requires a long-term additional cost contract with Microsoft?"

earlier you said "For the many, many businesses on cycles of four years or more"

You are SELECTIVELY slicing the market up only to SUPPORT your conclusion.

What about those businesses that want to upgrade on a timespan of 3.5year schedule?

You say "many, many"... but you don't quantify that, at all.

I should add, that my company (10k employees) upgrades on a <3year cycle... thus we enjoy SIGNIFICANT savings using SA.

but in Joe's world... my company doesn't exist. He would say we are "few few".

just realized my LESS THAN signs are stripped out when I submit my comments.

The earlier two posts SHOULD have read...

---------

sorry joe, but there are big flaws in the logic of your last comment.

"How is "cheapest," if something I didn't pay for before requires a long-term additional cost contract with Microsoft?"

earlier you said "For the many, many businesses on cycles of four years or more"

You are SELECTIVELY slicing the market up only to SUPPORT your conclusion.

What about those businesses that want to upgrade on a timespan of LESS THAN 3.5 years?

You say "many, many"... but you don't quantify that, at all.

I should add, that my company (10k employees) upgrades on a LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 3 year cycle.

but in Joe's world... my company doesn't exist. He would say we are "few few".

RE: Uhura

I'd love to know how your business can upgrade every 3 years when it was FIVE WHOLE YEARS between XP & Vista.

The M$ SPIN machine is really working overtime here ;-) Just face it guys, businesses are NOT stupid and have cottoned on to your bullying tactics.

I'm seeing a huge rebellion against this strong-arm behaviour - I'm helping MANY MANY customers save MILLIONS of Dollars by dropping SA, not just on Windows but on that bloated editing suite called Office too.

uhura wrote: "sorry joe, but there are big flaws in the logic of your last comment...You are SELECTIVELY slicing the market up only to SUPPORT your conclusion."

I've written about this before. Most businesses upgrade on cycles of three to five years, depending on software; this is based on analyst data and conversations with analysts. I'd rather quote numbers in a new post than comments; so watch for them soon.

The "cheapest" was a quote back to another commenter. If you upgrade every four years and Software Assurance costs more than full price software after three-and-a-half years but you take SA because that's the only way to get Vista Enterprise, you're paying more than you did before with XP Pro or before taking on SA as an option.

If you upgrade every three years, when did you move to XP? How soon to Vista?

Joe

Joe,
I enjoy reading your articles, and always find something of value in each.
And I am still finding the comments that follow to consist of mostly dirt but with a few amazing gems sprinkled in to make a scan worthwhile.
The comments paint an interesting picture of the operating system marketplace. To think that the mighty, mega-rich, mega-successful world-wide juggernaut that is Microsoft should fear your little ol' web site and attract such rabid and hateful defenders is rather oddly confusing.
These defenders of the Monopoly seem to be saying that Microsoft really and truly is in danger of collapse and desperately needs passionate supporters to keep it alive. They are saying that one of the richest businesses in the world is in danger of being toppled the "open source community", a disparate collection of people that are at once called a dangerous force and an ineffective and doomed bunch of zealots.
Some of this site's most rabid detractors have threatened more than once to leave. And yet they stay on... and spew on. If they can't be trusted to keep even such a simple promise, how can their other statements be seen to have any value at all?
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win." If the passionate backers of the Monopoly (including Mr. Balmer himself, and also those on this site) are any reliable indication, the FSF+GNU+Linux is well into the next-to-last stage.
Keep up the great work, Joe! You inform, some provide additional gems or well reasoned counterpoints, and the venomous rabble is just so entertaining!

liberator and joe...

We bought SA on win2k server... which entitled us to win2k3 server. hey liberator, how many years between 2003 and 2000? ;-)

We also purchased SA for Office. I'm not clear on the year, but it covered xp/2003.

We are buying SA for all new machines (vista). We didn't go SA for WinXP back in the day. That was part luck on our part, but had more to do with the fact that we bought alot of desktops before XP hit and it was sort of off-cycle for us.

Any more questions?

ps... liberator, i don't work for msft. believe it or not, life isn't one big conspiracy. you might check for some professional (medical) help, if you don't believe thats true.

Uhura - Ooh, struck a nerve there didn't I ;-) We don't tend to buy into these Conspiracy theories over this side of the pond, but you assumed I believed you worked for Microsoft; I never actually claimed that.

So you struck lucky on not taking SA on XP (Any advice on lotto numbers?). Lets just do the maths (sic) (as if you hadn't) for 2000-2007 2000=L+SA, 2001-2007=SA = L+(8xSA)= 3.32L (as SA=.29xL)Add in the OEM licences (conservatively 2 H/W refreshes over that period) and you will have paid 5.32 x the cost of a Windows Licence for 4 versions. Hey that's great value !!!

Still love the Beast of Redmond, huh?

...and one more thing Uhura...

...you seem to be a little confused, talking about Win2K & win2k3 server, then moving to XP, which is a client O/S rather than a server one...

Now if you've still got SA on win2K server then you might just get lucky again and get Longhorn for only 3.25 x the cost of 3 versions (L + 9 yrs SA @ a bargain 25%)

Economics - Dontcha just love it!!

liberator, such a nasty tone. Why do you hate?

how many corrections can i make with this mess you've so eloquently laid out?

1) there were no OEM licenses. dell images for us. So, when you refresh your research... back that out.

2) Im not confused in the sleightest. Re-read my post. paragraph 1 clearly talks about server os. paragraph 2 is clearly office related. and paragraph 3 is clearly client os related. what part of this has you baffled? or are you just pretending and hoping no one else is paying attention? If you don't have a point to make, that fine. But dont insult intelligence by using your imagination so blatantly.

3) you've left out just a FEW expenses. Our support calls were covered each of those SA years. Hard to quantify from your vantage, but not from mine. So I can't blame you for selectively leaving that out of your calculations. I mean, it only works AGAINST your numbers.

4) Office training (laugh all you want at this, but in the real world... people need training was covered by our office sa. So, back out whatever number best fits your obviously preconceived conclusions.

5) No licensing officer needed. When you talk about thousands of users... you used to need someone who had a good chunk of their time... concerned about licensing. That responsibility faded away with SA. One manager now negotiates SA, every 3rd year. Easy? Yep. Back that out of your costs too. Maybe $30-$50k/year for that alone. And if you laugh at that cost, you have obviously never been exposed to a bit IT operation. Its REAL.

I must say, your self-delusion of knowledge is quite entertaining.

liberator, i think the difference is simple. You are satisified with 'back of napkin' calculations. And somehow you can't fathom the thought that conscientious people, who are paid to be effective... could somehow be bamboozled by SA.

So, your only explanation is ?conspiracy?, ?ignorant buyers?, ?microsoft employees roaming forums that 4 whole peopel read?

You are funny.

Uhura, A nice bit of re-writing history (or rather editing your earlier comment) to squirm out of the tangle you got yourself into.

I can't really be bothered to continue this, because I can see what a blinkered disciple of Redmond you are, but what the heck...

I've helped customers save $90M in Microsoft licence fees in the past 2 years. That figure speaks for itself...and would pay for an awful lot of licence administrators ;-)

Smart customers understand that SA is commercial blackmail. M$ realize it too as they are now forcing customers who believe they need Vista Enterprise to take SA to get it.

And if you think SA gives you support, then DREAM ON. I'd hate to have to rely on the 1 support call I get for every $200K I spend on SA. Real customers know they have to pay another 10% or so for a Premier Support contract.

Put your toys back in your pram, and go suck yourself to sleep on you dummy that's been coated in Microsoft propaganda.

This conversation is at once pathetic and amusing. Just contemplate the time, effort and expense of engaging in this discussion; let alone the cost of Microsoft licensing under any guise.

Forget Linux if you are going to end up using the same inferior hardware under a superior OS.

We switched to OSX + Macs + XServes - a liberating experience. Try it; you'll like it!

btw - our costs $999 unlimited server license; >$50 seat/desktop. And please do not dust off the old saw about Apple's expensive hardware. Do a build to order comparison - especially for the XServe and see what you get.

lol. giving up so soon liberator? your last comment burped out a statement like "re-writing history", but you offered absolutely ZERO in the way of why/how or even a single detail in support.

IOW, you're a troll. You think you can utter a couple of comments and nobody will take the time to call you on it. You were wrong in this instance, and got pointed out for the troll you are. You see, thats a reason why you are likely a nothing in your professional life, because you are lazy in your debate, and energetic in spouting off your opinions. Thats a combination that makes for a very frustrated man. So, change your ways while you still can.

Uhura - Move over Robin Williams, the next big comedian is here. If running a practice that has delivered Millions of Dollars of savings for customers is failure, I'll happily stick with that...

..and Daniel - Bravo. A true enlightened soul. The key to all of this is CHOICE - something that M$ is very keen to limit.

Way to go, Mr. Reiss! After the boss at my company quickly grew to hate his new Vista desktop (and some convincing from me), he decided that outdated PC's will be replaced with iMacs and Mac OS X, with XP or Vista inside VMware if needed.

A couple of our servers are also migrating from Win2K3 to Linux (Gentoo or Ubuntu). (Apple's Xserve is very nice, and Mac OS X Server is the best server OS out there, but it's still out of our price range.)

If Microsoft doesn't do something amazing with Windows 7, they could be looking at less income. (Windows Server 2008 is a good step forward, but does not impress me.)