IT Debate: Microsoft?s reimaging fees

Microsoft encourage pirating by unscupulous companies by their heavy handed approach. Imaging is just an IT dept. time saver - nothing more as the end product is the same as a manual build. Therefore I see no reason extra costs should be incurred.
Also - as for MS backtracking and allowing Select customers some reimaging rights - MS probably knew they would have to let the big boys do it and just put that in so they could be seen to give way a little - big deal !

The bread and butter of MS is their smaller Open and OEM customers and if they start making IT Admin more difficult then maybe we should make the switch to Linux (God help us !).

Ihave been a big fan of Microsoft for years. My company runs about 20 servers, most of which are NetWare. Our workstations are a mix of Windows 95/98, Windows NT 4.0, and Windows 2000 Professional.

For one of our larger projects for next year, weintended to "upgrade" all of our workstations and servers to Windows 2000. At a cost of close to $100,000.

However, after seeing this article on the licensing of reimaged machines, I am questioning this move. To deploy 250 workstations effectively, it is just not feasible to build each from scratch. Also, even though we have been pleased with Dell's machines, there are sometimes issues with the OS as it arrives in the box.

We currently use Ghost images based on the Dell OEM version of Windows 2000 to re-image the machines, and now I wonder if that is acceptable by MS.

Even using SMS for software distribution is not as fast as Ghost. And then the issue of Office licenses needing to be upgraded is scary. With 250 seats (fortunately purchased through Open), it costs a lot of money to upgrade. When we purchase new machines, often Office comes pre-installed. For us to re-purchase those licenses is theft in my opinion. Microsoft needs to realize it is about to hack off any organization with an IT staff that depends on imaging to create stable and sustainable machines and implementation efficiency.

If reimaging using the OEM version of the OS is not allowed my MS, our costs will rise significantly, with no benefit. If we ownthe OS, why can we not re-install it? Maybe Microsoft has hired too many technology philosophers and accountants who don't understand business reality.

I have been happy with some of Microsoft's software. I like them because they keep me employed. However, it has gotten to a point where Microsoft is looking to squeeze more cash out of your current business partners. As we all might know, going to another open standard in OS, applications, etc, will be better in the long run, because it's free and companies will not get trapped into this problem. What companies need to realize is that Microsoft is not thier solution to everything. These arethe fine consequences when working with a company as large as Microsoft. A smart man once said about society, religion, society, government and business, "..all these tend to corrupt as soon as it get's big...". Folks, Microsoft is one of them.

Gartner is spot on. That OEMs point to Microsoft for clarification of the OEM license is telling.

The last multimillion dollar deployment of desktops to multiple sites I was involved with used the OEM to corporate image the desktop on the factory floor. However, this decision was in no way related to licensing. It merely was the most cost effective method to deploy a corporate standardized desktop.

The new re-imaging fees appear to be a bully move by MSN on their customer community and are not isolated. When Sun realized that it had a software problem with its high-end servers, it forced its customers to sign a non-disclosure agreement that kept the problem under wraps. Without visibility prospective Sun Customes were buying equipment with defects waiting to happen. Similarly, IBM has forced companies to buy total solutions and would not support systems that included memory manufactured by anyone but themselves. In Japan this strategy is called kereitsu.
Gartner has straddled the product approval barrier and brought to the attention of the IS&T community and by the power of their size been able to bring some sense to Microsoft's cupidity. However, every company in history is guilty of this practice in one way or another and in a free enterprise society this practice will continue to require champions like Gartner. Congratulations.
The bigger picture is to see that like Napsterthe Internet is a virgin market place and new rules and twists will occasionally shake out and be tested and remedied. This won't be the last and the market will continue to correct itself especially with the help of companies like Gartner.
Gene Gutt
http://www.internetsservices.bigstep.com

Your article may have missed one important point when it addressed "Why is this an issue now?". They inded have a history of actions such as this, but this action also plays directly into their plans for the future of Microsoft software use. They have announced intentions of moving towards an environment where users access their applications online rather than actually purchasing software. This draconian method of saddling customers with unnecessary inefficiencies by preventing imaging will play directly into their hands by making the move to the new online environment more palatable for many customers. It's a win-win situation for them. They collect billions in extra profits for providing absolutely no additional product or service to their customers, and they also produce an environment that allows them to force customers into their version of the future. It's the typical Microsoft marketing method - Damn the customers, full profits ahead!!!

This question was closed by the author