Yearly pricing?

[edavid3001]

I keep hearing that Microsoft wants to and plans to release a new
pricing where you pay a yearly fee to license Microsoft insted of a
flat $300 for XP. I understand that if you don't continue to renew
your license, then XP would quit working.

What is happening in the area? I would like to see this as an option.
At work we have around 400 machines that have not been upgraded to
XP. If we paid a yearly license fee for Windows, and were granted all
updates such as from 2000 PRO to XP PRO, then we would be XP right now.

The cost would have to be more around the ball park of $50 a seat per
year, with discounts for higher quantitys of seats.

It would be much easier to sell the boss on a moving to XP if it wasn't
going to cost us $80,000 in Windows licensing fees alone ($199x400
MSRP.) And in the long run, Microsoft gets the steady revenue stream
they want.

At home, I could much easier afford to upgrade if it wasn't $199 to go
from 2000 PRO to XP PRO but part of my yearly licensing fees anyway. I
would imagine a full PC licensed this way could cost less up front. I
do consulting work, and I can't count the number of PC's I work on that
are still running Windows 95 or 98 there are so many. I imagine these
folks would have had me upgrade them to XP if it was licensed the way I
have mentioned. As it is I am surprised they don't have more problems
than they do running such old OSes. These folks can barely afford me,
let alone $199 to upgrade. They could afford $50 a year, however.

I would imagine this licensing structure wouldn't be for everyone. But
there are those of us who want this as an option. Again, is this going
to be a reality someday? Thanks

http://www.microsoft.com/products/i...ovr&pcid=2abf99cd-a5e4-469c-802e-55ca8ec542d5

 

[Asher_N]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in

I keep hearing that Microsoft wants to and plans to release a new
pricing where you pay a yearly fee to license Microsoft insted of a
flat $300 for XP. I understand that if you don't continue to renew
your license, then XP would quit working.

What is happening in the area? I would like to see this as an
option.
At work we have around 400 machines that have not been upgraded to
XP. If we paid a yearly license fee for Windows, and were granted all
updates such as from 2000 PRO to XP PRO, then we would be XP right
now.

The cost would have to be more around the ball park of $50 a seat per
year, with discounts for higher quantitys of seats.

It would be much easier to sell the boss on a moving to XP if it
wasn't going to cost us $80,000 in Windows licensing fees alone
($199x400 MSRP.) And in the long run, Microsoft gets the steady
revenue stream they want.

At home, I could much easier afford to upgrade if it wasn't $199 to go
from 2000 PRO to XP PRO but part of my yearly licensing fees anyway.
I would imagine a full PC licensed this way could cost less up front.
I do consulting work, and I can't count the number of PC's I work on
that are still running Windows 95 or 98 there are so many. I imagine
these folks would have had me upgrade them to XP if it was licensed
the way I have mentioned. As it is I am surprised they don't have
more problems than they do running such old OSes. These folks can
barely afford me, let alone $199 to upgrade. They could afford $50 a
year, however.

I would imagine this licensing structure wouldn't be for everyone.
But there are those of us who want this as an option. Again, is this
going to be a reality someday? Thanks

http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/product.aspx?view=22&type=ovr&pc
id=2abf99cd-a5e4-469c-802e-55ca8ec542d5

Talk to MS about Software Assurance. Basically, you buy the software and
then pay a yearly maintenance fee (around 15-20% I think). That entitles
you to upgrades.

 

[Jon]

You must work for Microsoft, if that is your dream

Jon

 

[Ken Blake]

In

I keep hearing that Microsoft wants to and plans to release a
new
pricing where you pay a yearly fee to license Microsoft insted
of a
flat $300 for XP. I understand that if you don't continue to
renew
your license, then XP would quit working.

Rumors like this have been going around for years. I've never
heard this from Microsoft, and as far as I'm concerned, it's
nothing but a rumor.

 

[-rwxrw-r--]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in


Talk to MS about Software Assurance. Basically, you buy the software and
then pay a yearly maintenance fee (around 15-20% I think). That entitles
you to upgrades.

"Software Assurance" coming from Microsoft, sounds like a misnomer. Much
like "military intelligence".

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It seems you do not understand Software Assurance:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/programs/sa/default.mspx

 

[SpryMan]

Software Assurance from microsoft will help you "...gain control
of your technology strategy..."

If one does not have control over their own strategy, they have a more
serious problem than they think they do.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

It is another option that can be used.
You can take it or leave it but it is another option provided by Microsoft.
I for one like it when a business gives me more choices.
The more choices the better the chance of having something that meets my
specific needs.
Perhaps you would prefer Microsoft remove this option many use simply
because it does not meet your needs?

 

[johnsmith]

I keep hearing that Microsoft wants to and plans to release a new
pricing where you pay a yearly fee to license Microsoft insted of a
flat $300 for XP. I understand that if you don't continue to renew
your license, then XP would quit working.

What is happening in the area? I would like to see this as an option.
At work we have around 400 machines that have not been upgraded to
XP. If we paid a yearly license fee for Windows, and were granted all
updates such as from 2000 PRO to XP PRO, then we would be XP right now.

The cost would have to be more around the ball park of $50 a seat per
year, with discounts for higher quantitys of seats.

It would be much easier to sell the boss on a moving to XP if it wasn't
going to cost us $80,000 in Windows licensing fees alone ($199x400
MSRP.) And in the long run, Microsoft gets the steady revenue stream
they want.

At home, I could much easier afford to upgrade if it wasn't $199 to go
from 2000 PRO to XP PRO but part of my yearly licensing fees anyway. I
would imagine a full PC licensed this way could cost less up front. I
do consulting work, and I can't count the number of PC's I work on that
are still running Windows 95 or 98 there are so many. I imagine these
folks would have had me upgrade them to XP if it was licensed the way I
have mentioned. As it is I am surprised they don't have more problems
than they do running such old OSes. These folks can barely afford me,
let alone $199 to upgrade. They could afford $50 a year, however.

I would imagine this licensing structure wouldn't be for everyone. But
there are those of us who want this as an option. Again, is this going
to be a reality someday? Thanks

The DeScribe word processor publisher floated this idea, but it was pointed out that if you ceased subscribing then you would no longer be able to access the documents you created with your subscription.

 

[Asher_N]

Software Assurance is probably the best change in licensing strategy from
Microsoft aimed at the Enterprise. It is far better to budget a know yearly
maintenance, fully tax deductible than be faced with a large capital
expense every 2-3 years. Worse if a software upgrade is required before the
previous capital expense has not been fully depreciated.

 

[Alias]

Software Assurance is probably the best change in licensing strategy from
Microsoft aimed at the Enterprise.

Star Trek uses Windows?

Alias

 

[Bob I]

Of course that leads to the problem of the customer expecting a new
release every couple of years for their "upfront" money, and the company
feels pressure to push the product out to keep the customer happy! So we
still have a problem with cost and quality? Humm? Is it really an answer?

 

[Asher_N]

Not really. The cost is between 20 to 30% depending on the product. When
you start talking with the larger companies, it's not unusual to spend
15-20% per year on maintenance fees for software.

If you look at MS track record for Office, they've released a new version
almost every 3 years, It's easier to justify that 30% per year.
Management understands maintenance fees, cap expenses are a little harder
to push through.

 

[Asher_N]

Star Trek uses Windows?

Alias

And that explains why Scotty was always patching it.

 

[edavid3001]

It seems you do not understand Software Assurance:

Wow. Your right. After reading the documents, I understand it even
less. I see there is educational classes on Software Assurance. Any
time a licensing plan requires educational classes, you know you're in
trouble.

KISS. AFAICT SA isn't really a match for what I was talking about.

 

[DevilsPGD]

In message <[email protected]>

The DeScribe word processor publisher floated this idea, but it was pointed out that if you ceased subscribing then you would no longer be able to access the documents you created with your subscription.

There is already a free Word DOC reader available, isn't there?

 

[Mr Blobby]

In message <[email protected]>



There is already a free Word DOC reader available, isn't there?

What you require is a site licence based on the amout of machines you
have, you then can install any microsoft software on all the machines
for a 3 yearly fee

 

[edavid3001]

Any Microsoft Software?

So I purchase 400 SA licenses and then I can have 20 SQL servers? 50
Exchange servers? 400 PC's running Server 2003? Seems odd.

 

[Asher_N]

(e-mail address removed) wrote in @o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

Any Microsoft Software?

So I purchase 400 SA licenses and then I can have 20 SQL servers? 50
Exchange servers? 400 PC's running Server 2003? Seems odd.

No. Sa applies to the software you buy. If you buy 400 Office 2003
licenses and opt for SA, you'll pay around 30% of theat cost yearly, and
will be entitled to 400 copies of the next version of Office. It's great
for everything except the OS. You can't order SA for the OEM OS. Nor can
you have OEM OS count for points in a VLP. That sucks. OTOH, you usually
upgrade the OS when you replace the hardware anyway.

 

[edavid3001]

Ok, thanks for the information. My initial topic was regarding the
OS, so your statement ". It's great for everything except the OS. "
goes back to my original post -- there needs to be a yearly version of
the OS which doesn't cost so much on the initial purchase.

I support folks that run Pentium's in the 300MHZ range. Many which are
running windows 9x still. Some on 2000. They don't ever patch
because there is no Automatic Updates and it's so slow over dialup.
They want XP but can't afford the upgrade price.

Some folks would complain that the OS quits working if you don't renew,
I agree. And those people would buy the OS outright. However, some
people would be better served paying a lower yearly fee and be renewing
it once a year.

I pay my ISP monthly, I pay my cable bill monthly, I pay my antivirus
software yearly. I pay my car loan and mortgage monthly. So it's not
a new concept.

Anyway, this is just my opinion. Good day.