Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Ping Nathan Mercer, Brett Roberts et al - Windows CALs

Reply
Thread Tools

Ping Nathan Mercer, Brett Roberts et al - Windows CALs

 
 
Gurble
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004

Last time I was at a Microsoft presentation, Brett (I think it was
him, anyway) invited everyone to email sales questions to an email
address that I can't remember anymore. These were in relation to
helping us sell Windows over Linux etc.

So here goes. I thought I'd ask on a public forum, as I'm sure many
others here are interested as well:

I'd really be interested in Microsofts and/or your justification for
charging for CALs.

The way I see it, you pay for Windows Server, pay for Windows on the
workstations, then you have to pay again to actually connect the two!
Surely if you own the server and the workstations, you should be able
to do as you please, including connecting YOUR workstations to YOUR
server?

The only reason I bring this up is that I was asked by one of our
clients, who is looking at spending several thousand dollars on
Windows Server and XP Pro licenses, and wasn't very impressed when I
politely informed him that he'd have to spend another thousand or so
on CALs - and especially the fact they are just a piece of paper
saying you can connect to the server, rather than anything tangible.

Your thoughts?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
Gurble wrote:
> Last time I was at a Microsoft presentation, Brett (I think it was
> him, anyway) invited everyone to email sales questions to an email
> address that I can't remember anymore. These were in relation to
> helping us sell Windows over Linux etc.
>
> So here goes. I thought I'd ask on a public forum, as I'm sure many
> others here are interested as well:
>
> I'd really be interested in Microsofts and/or your justification for
> charging for CALs.
>
> The way I see it, you pay for Windows Server, pay for Windows on the
> workstations, then you have to pay again to actually connect the two!
> Surely if you own the server and the workstations, you should be able
> to do as you please, including connecting YOUR workstations to YOUR
> server?
>
> The only reason I bring this up is that I was asked by one of our
> clients, who is looking at spending several thousand dollars on
> Windows Server and XP Pro licenses, and wasn't very impressed when I
> politely informed him that he'd have to spend another thousand or so
> on CALs - and especially the fact they are just a piece of paper
> saying you can connect to the server, rather than anything tangible.
>
> Your thoughts?


Best way for MS to get competative is carry on with the 50~66% discounts
its offering certain customers if they look at moving to Linux...

regards

Thing











 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
thing
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
Gurble wrote:
> Last time I was at a Microsoft presentation, Brett (I think it was
> him, anyway) invited everyone to email sales questions to an email
> address that I can't remember anymore. These were in relation to
> helping us sell Windows over Linux etc.
>
> So here goes. I thought I'd ask on a public forum, as I'm sure many
> others here are interested as well:
>
> I'd really be interested in Microsofts and/or your justification for
> charging for CALs.
>
> The way I see it, you pay for Windows Server, pay for Windows on the
> workstations, then you have to pay again to actually connect the two!
> Surely if you own the server and the workstations, you should be able
> to do as you please, including connecting YOUR workstations to YOUR
> server?
>
> The only reason I bring this up is that I was asked by one of our
> clients, who is looking at spending several thousand dollars on
> Windows Server and XP Pro licenses, and wasn't very impressed when I
> politely informed him that he'd have to spend another thousand or so
> on CALs - and especially the fact they are just a piece of paper
> saying you can connect to the server, rather than anything tangible.
>
> Your thoughts?


I also think MS cannot get a handle on how to deal with Linux/OSS, MS is
now no longer the cheapest option, though step back a moment and
consider MS was the cheapest option..so

1) MS has got more expensive but consider that by defination other
commercial OSes were an even bigger rip off, so is MS that bad compared
to the other US corps?

2) Attitude, customers want to buy what they want when they want to,
imagine if Ford came along and said we wont service your vehicle anymore
its 3 years old you have to upgrade? When you as a driver know the car
is good for another 3 probably 6 years without major items failing?

3) While MS has some nice flashy products fundementally thier products
are still flaky and a security hazard. So stability and security REALLY
have to become a priority. The likes of sophos and samantec have built a
nice fat business on anti-virus ware, yet that is still reactive and not
pro-active....

regards

Thing





















 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave - Dave.net.nz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
thing wrote:
> 2) Attitude, customers want to buy what they want when they want to,
> imagine if Ford came along and said we wont service your vehicle anymore
> its 3 years old you have to upgrade? When you as a driver know the car
> is good for another 3 probably 6 years without major items failing?


They do, it's called the "Factory Warranty" 2 years or 100000kms or
similar. If you want free support after that, you must pay for it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dogg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:32:21 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
<dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> wrote:

<snippity doo daa>

> If you want free support after that, you must pay for it.


Is this an oxymoron?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> was seen to type:
>thing wrote:
>> 2) Attitude, customers want to buy what they want when they want to,
>> imagine if Ford came along and said we wont service your vehicle anymore
>> its 3 years old you have to upgrade? When you as a driver know the car
>> is good for another 3 probably 6 years without major items failing?

>
>They do, it's called the "Factory Warranty" 2 years or 100000kms or
>similar. If you want free support after that, you must pay for it.


Sure. But that said, if there is a design flaw that affects safety,
the cars get recalled and fixed at no charge



Bruce

================================================== =
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave
is olds.
Lord Vetinari, ¨The Truth¨ Terry Pratchet

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Sinclair
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, "Dave - Dave.net.nz" <dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> was seen to type:
>Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>2) Attitude, customers want to buy what they want when they want to,
>>>>imagine if Ford came along and said we wont service your vehicle anymore
>>>>its 3 years old you have to upgrade? When you as a driver know the car
>>>>is good for another 3 probably 6 years without major items failing?

>
>>>They do, it's called the "Factory Warranty" 2 years or 100000kms or
>>>similar. If you want free support after that, you must pay for it.

>
>> Sure. But that said, if there is a design flaw that affects safety,
>> the cars get recalled and fixed at no charge

>
>or they tell you not to drive at excessive speed(mitsi?)


IIRC they did eventually fix the problem tho


Bruce

================================================== =
In short, what people think they want is news, but what they really crave
is olds.
Lord Vetinari, ¨The Truth¨ Terry Pratchet

Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Brett Roberts
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
"Gurble" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Last time I was at a Microsoft presentation, Brett (I think it was
> him, anyway) invited everyone to email sales questions to an email
> address that I can't remember anymore. These were in relation to
> helping us sell Windows over Linux etc.
>
> So here goes. I thought I'd ask on a public forum, as I'm sure many
> others here are interested as well:
>
> I'd really be interested in Microsofts and/or your justification for
> charging for CALs.
>
> The way I see it, you pay for Windows Server, pay for Windows on the
> workstations, then you have to pay again to actually connect the two!
> Surely if you own the server and the workstations, you should be able
> to do as you please, including connecting YOUR workstations to YOUR
> server?
>
> The only reason I bring this up is that I was asked by one of our
> clients, who is looking at spending several thousand dollars on
> Windows Server and XP Pro licenses, and wasn't very impressed when I
> politely informed him that he'd have to spend another thousand or so
> on CALs - and especially the fact they are just a piece of paper
> saying you can connect to the server, rather than anything tangible.
>
> Your thoughts?


I was working in reseller land when Microsoft introduced the concept of
CAL's (in the mid 90's IIRC). Prior to then companies such as Novell etc
charged $x for a server and it didn't matter if you were connecting 1 user
or 1000, the price was the same. I had several customers at the time who
disliked the Novell licensing model and thought the CAL model (i.e. "pay for
what you use") was a far better idea so I am guessing that the model was
introduced as a competitive differentiator. The key thing here is to look at
the overall picture i.e. "what does it cost me to hook up a given number of
clients to a given server ?" and compare that cost across competing
products. For all of those people who harbour the perception that switching
to Linux makes sense because it saves on upfront licensing costs you might
be interested in reading this:

http://download.microsoft.com/downlo...aringPoint.doc

I did some numbers a while back and it worked out that an average small
business in NZ running Windows XP Pro, Office 2003 Pro and Small Business
Server is paying around $1 per day per user for our software. I think that's
pretty reasonable especially when it's compared to the cost of other
business tools such as cellphones.

By the way, the email alias you wanted was http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) - there are
a handful of people on this end of that alias and I'm one of them. Response
times tend to be less than 24 hours (assuming the right questions have been
asked in the original email)

HTH

Brett Roberts
Microsoft NZ


 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
thing <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:hizLc.9695$(E-Mail Removed):


> 3) While MS has some nice flashy products fundementally thier products
> are still flaky and a security hazard. So stability and security REALLY
> have to become a priority. The likes of sophos and samantec have built a
> nice fat business on anti-virus ware, yet that is still reactive and not
> pro-active....
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
>

Just to go OT for a moment, I bought a copy of V-Com system Suite last week
and found that they use Linux on the Boot CD image you can burn to run
their recovery apps from the CD, though this didn't get aroound my earlier
problem regarding making bootable CD's

I consider buying this kind of S/ware as *part* of the cost of buying a new
PC (running a windows OS).
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




--
Chris

"Two men walk into a bar. You'd think the second one would've ducked..."
 
Reply With Quote
 
AD.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-21-2004
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 09:25:31 +1200, Dogg wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 08:32:21 +1200, "Dave - Dave.net.nz"
> <dave@no_spam_here_dave.net.nz> wrote:
>
> <snippity doo daa>
>
>> If you want free support after that, you must pay for it.

>
> Is this an oxymoron?


Then again the free support you got earlier was factored into the purchase
price so you still paid for it anyway

Cheers
Anton
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Microsoft Replaces Brett Roberts Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 14 03-16-2010 11:46 PM
Shame on Brett Roberts for publishing such misleading propaganda! Jonathan Walker NZ Computing 1 08-28-2007 11:27 AM
Ping Brett Roberts - re COA Stickers JohnO NZ Computing 15 06-29-2005 08:03 PM
Windows Update - One for Brett Roberts Graeme Woollett NZ Computing 42 06-13-2005 09:27 PM
Atten: Brett Roberts Kookaburra NZ Computing 3 05-06-2004 09:18 AM



Advertisments