General discussion


NT4, how are your customers responding to the upcoming end of cycle support

By mjost ·
On the subject of NT4, how are your customers responding to the upcoming end of cycle support issue?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

by haileyan In reply to NT4, how are your custome ...

I upgraded all of my NT40 servers 2 years ago. Support is so much easier without it.

Collapse -

Your lucky

by mjost In reply to

Lots of inplace servers and, I am sure, that alot of business' havent even thought about it. Wondering if MS will extend it again but it doesnt appear to be on the plate.

Collapse -

Reluctantly upgrading

by Clemmy In reply to NT4, how are your custome ...

Most of our clients that resisted the win 2k upgrade are moving to 2003. This has been more due to the age of servers rather than the need to move away from nt4.
As a joint operation moving in new servers with new O/S is a lot easier than in line upgrade on old hardware.

Collapse -

Keeping NT4

by CJMPE In reply to Reluctantly upgrading

My company is only reluctantly moving to Win2K3 because of the age of our servers. However, since we don't qualify for upgrade licenses, we intend to keep the NT4 boxes running as NAS type devices until they die.

Collapse -

GOD what a sore spot !!!

by mjost In reply to Keeping NT4

Moving to the newer OS for a larger organization is not just the hardware and new OS. It is other costs that, after factoring in, are some what daunting to explain such as CAL's for multiple servers (and they do not migrate either). MS has pushed 'consolidation' as an off-setting factor but if you are a medium to small business for 2 to 5 servers it is going to hard bite off. I notice MS is offering some offsetting incentives for the CAL price issue. Did your organization do any 'consolidations'of hardware?

Collapse -

CAL's a reason to look elsewhere

by gawiman In reply to GOD what a sore spot !!!

"Pay us for the desktop OS's, Pay us for the server OS's and pay us yet again for a separate license to connect each desktop to each server."

I will never understand CAL's. I've read explanations and justifications, but it still just seems to fit under the "because we can" column.

Wish we could go to a more liberal server OS but our organization just thinks MS is the bee's knees.

Collapse -

The logic (or illogic) of CALs

by TomSal In reply to CAL's a reason to look el ...

I'm with you on that too, I don't understand CALs either. I basically think it comes down to nothing more complex than simple greed. Its a way to get more money out of your products.

I can understand needing a license for each client desktop and each server -- that is fine by my book and that's how simple it should be. If you buy 100 copies of the desktop software, and buy 5 copies of the server software -- that's it. You should need nothing more for legalling using that software in a networked fashion. I should be able to use any of my 5 servers in any way I deem I want to and they should be able to connect to the 100 clients in any array, in any order and as often as needed. No connection limits or restrictions. No server "role" restrictions.

But once rules are applied "But you need ANOTHER license if your server is used as this, but if your server is that you don't need a license..and oh by the way how many connections are you going to use with that server...blah blah".

Basically I hate software licensing all together to be honest.

I abide by the rules of course -- you have to in business, its part of being professional; but it doesn't mean I think the rules are right.

I just think software should just be as simple as this:

1) ALL purchased software from any manufacturer should grant the purchaser legal use of the software on 2 machines at the same time. This would fill the need for "One copy at the office, one copy at home".

2) No restrictions on use in networked environments, simply you need to purchase 1 copy for each unique computer.

3) The license should be attached to the specific purchaser NOT the machine its installed on. If my computer dies, none of this "that software only works on that hardware image" BS --- no..If I go through 500 machines over the years, I should be able to use that ONE copy and re-install on each new machine as I need too.

Ok I'm done...

Collapse -

CALs make more sense than user limits

by hmarks In reply to The logic (or illogic) of ...

Remember that MS's CALs were a lot more sensable than Novell's 50 user version and 100 user versions of NetWare. They would charge a different price for each and stop accepting connections when you hit the limit.

All the commercial (as opposed to open source) software vendors charge more for bigger sites somehow. Oracle charges for named users or processor power.

If they only charged a fixed price for SQL server or Exchange Server regardless of the number of users it would price it out of the mid market not to mention small.

CALs, pain in the butt they are, are the fairest way to get money based on usage.

Collapse -

Yeah, I just wish it would be simple

by TomSal In reply to CALs make more sense than ...

I guess I never thought of Oracle or Novell's way of doing things -- that does suck.

I just don't understand why there needs to be so many rules or complexities to it -- particularly Microsoft's license structure.

I think there should be discounts on volume but besides that just make it simple like:

A) You need to buy at least one FULL copy of a server OS for each unique server you have (doesn't matter if its 1 cpu or 16 cpu's)

B) You need to buy one full copy of the Desktop OS for each machine but if you buy more than say 10 the cost of each copy is discounted by say 25% or so.

C) Finally the licenses should be volume discounted, with no need to pick a special program or be a certain size company -- its simply your discount is based on your volume purchase and it happens automatically. Further more a CAL should be no more than say $10, because let's face it they still made money on the initial software sale and you still legally paid for each copy already.

That's it.

No openvalue this, volume licensing that, these set of rules apply to how you use this software or that software.

Hey when software licensing gets to be so complicated that it can be nearly a full time job just managing that --- something is seriously wrong with the licesning picture.

Collapse -

I fully agree Tom

by HAL 9000 Moderator In reply to The logic (or illogic) of ...

That's how it should be but because of one companies "GREED" it gets far too complicated. Trying to understand their reasoning working in that fashion gives me a headache so now I just go with the flow and no longer ask questions as the explanations are far more time consuming that I have to spend.


Related Discussions

Related Forums