Windows server 2003 licencing

We have a LAN with 10 servers and 30 users/workstations.

The workstations are all running legal copies of XP, but the former IT
guy put pirated copies of Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition on
the servers. I have been given the task of making us legal.

Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.

"Nobody" wrote in message
...



We have a LAN with 10 servers and 30 users/workstations.

The workstations are all running legal copies of XP, but the former IT
guy put pirated copies of Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition on
the servers. I have been given the task of making us legal.

Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.



the first thing you want to do is get a open license agreement / account
from a certified reseller or MS online. You can get all the media you want
for basically the shipping costs, and you can manage your own licensing
online.

learn more he

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...n/default.mspx

- LC

"Nut Cracker" wrote
Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.



the first thing you want to do is get a open license agreement / account
from a certified reseller or MS online. You can get all the media you want
for basically the shipping costs, and you can manage your own licensing
online.

learn more he

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...n/default.mspx

- LC

Respect dude - that is a spot-on answer.

I would go down the Certified Reseller route - the "Certfied" should mean
that you are talking to someone who has done training + an exam on MS
licensing options, and is able to find the best MS licensing deal for you.

Jez T wrote:

"Nut Cracker" wrote

Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.

the first thing you want to do is get a open license agreement / account
from a certified reseller or MS online. You can get all the media you want
for basically the shipping costs, and you can manage your own licensing
online.

learn more he

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...n/default.mspx

- LC

Respect dude - that is a spot-on answer.

I would go down the Certified Reseller route - the "Certfied" should mean
that you are talking to someone who has done training + an exam on MS
licensing options, and is able to find the best MS licensing deal for you.

I also agree with the above. HP and Dell have such individuals.
HP often has very good prices on Microsoft licensing, and Dell has
some very knowledgable people on their help desk. I had a quaestion
a while back about licensing for virtual servers on a Core Duo and
they had the answer at their fingertips.

Please post the answer you get so that in the future people can learn
from your experience.

Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Jez T wrote:

"Nut Cracker" wrote

Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.

the first thing you want to do is get a open license agreement / account
from a certified reseller or MS online. You can get all the media you want
for basically the shipping costs, and you can manage your own licensing
online.

learn more he

http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/p...n/default.mspx

- LC

Respect dude - that is a spot-on answer.

I would go down the Certified Reseller route - the "Certfied" should mean
that you are talking to someone who has done training + an exam on MS
licensing options, and is able to find the best MS licensing deal for you.

I also agree with the above. HP and Dell have such individuals.
HP often has very good prices on Microsoft licensing, and Dell has
some very knowledgable people on their help desk. I had a quaestion
a while back about licensing for virtual servers on a Core Duo and
they had the answer at their fingertips.

Please post the answer you get so that in the future people can learn
from your experience.

I was talking to Dell about another issue today, and asked them about
the price. Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 standard edition with
no "software assurance" (buy future versions, pay now) will run you
about $650 per server.

Have you considered Linux?

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

"Nobody" wrote in message
...
We have a LAN with 10 servers and 30 users/workstations.

The workstations are all running legal copies of XP, but the former IT
guy put pirated copies of Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard Edition on
the servers. I have been given the task of making us legal.

Given the above, what would be the best licencing scheme?
Microsoft seems to have a jillion possibilities, and I don't
want to over-pay.

What applications are running on each server?

I'm pretty fond of the Web Server Edition of Windows 2003. Microsoft
wants you to believe it is only a web server, but in our experience it is a
wonderful application server.

Regarding open licensing, I think that makes sense if you are a big company
that values clean business processes more than you value money. But it
looks to me that open licensing is really about account control. I
personally prefer to get the licenses with the servers, because in
Microsoft's business model they price the OEM software to the hardware maker
at about 1/2 of the price of the retail or open license software. The ugly
truth is that Microsoft's monopoly is quickly leading us to a place where
the software license has as much or more value than the hardware it runs on.
So if you pinch pennies you don't lose opportunities to buy such expensive
software at implicit 50% discounts.

--
Will

Will wrote:

Regarding open licensing, I think that makes sense if you are a big
company that values clean business processes more than you value money.

Even for a small company, bending the rules could end up costing more
than following them. Doing illegal things to save money put a bad
taste in many business owner's mouths.

But it looks to me that open licensing is really about account control.
I personally prefer to get the licenses with the servers, because in
Microsoft's business model they price the OEM software to the hardware
maker at about 1/2 of the price of the retail or open license software.
The ugly truth is that Microsoft's monopoly is quickly leading us to
a place where the software license has as much or more value than the
hardware it runs on.

Alas, most servers purchased used on eBay don't have Windows 2003 R2
licences included. They are great Linux boxes, though.

I'm pretty fond of the Web Server Edition of Windows 2003. Microsoft
wants you to believe it is only a web server, but in our experience it is a
wonderful application server.

Alas, that isn't allowed if you are part of a corporation that does
not bend the rules.

"Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used solely to deploy Web
pages, Web sites, Web applications, and Web services."

"Installations of non-Web serving applications are prohibited"

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv...w/web.mspx#ELD

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...
Regarding open licensing, I think that makes sense if you are a big
company that values clean business processes more than you value money.

Even for a small company, bending the rules could end up costing more
than following them. Doing illegal things to save money put a bad
taste in many business owner's mouths.

I'm offended by this remark. I never once suggested that anyone should
bend rules.

What I did say, and what is true, is that licenses purchased *LEGALLY* with
the computer are cheaper. And I'm NOT referring to bootleg software that
some jerk hacked onto a used computer. I'm referring to LEGAL licenses
that Microsoft has sold to an OEM for use with that specific piece of
hardware. These are license with the Microsoft COA directly attached to
the box.

Whether it is common knowledge or not, Microsoft steeply discounts the
software licenses that are pre-installed with the COA onto each box. The
retail and open licenses always cost more.


I'm pretty fond of the Web Server Edition of Windows 2003. Microsoft
wants you to believe it is only a web server, but in our experience it is
a
wonderful application server.

Alas, that isn't allowed if you are part of a corporation that does
not bend the rules.

What an amazing act of stupidity on Microsoft's part. We were going to
standardize on Windows Server 2003 Web Edition for end user desktops, and in
the process we were prepared to spend 100% more for those licenses than the
Windows XP licenses. Now Microsoft is in effect cutting themselves out
of every opportunity for such an upgrade by wrongly assuming that every
customer for the Web Edition was using it as a server.

That's what happens when a company gets too many lawyers and starts to micro
manage every decision a customer makes. They cut themselves out of upside
opportunities as often as they do maximize their self interest.

All I ever hear from Microsoft customers these days is how offensive the
transfer rules are with Vista, and I would say the above restriction is
similarly offensive. I mean Microsoft is certainly welcome to limit which
OS its own applications can run on, but to limit what third party
applications can run on each OS is wacko, not to mention anti competitive in
an extremely mean-spirited way. I feel enormous frustration on hearing
such restrictions, and I start to feel that Microsoft is starting to develop
an extremely malicious intent towards its customers.

--
Will

"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...
"Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used solely to deploy Web
pages, Web sites, Web applications, and Web services."

By the way, until you mentioned this (and I guess I should thank you for
it), I never knew that there were actual licensing restrictions on third
party applications. What's particularly frustrating for me is that we
have had multiple open trouble tickets with Microsoft for that OS, some of
which had Microsoft techs logging into the machine, and never once did
anyone mention those restrictions.

Now I'm faced with rolling back an entire year of planned upgrades, and I'm
really depressed at the thought that we are now stuck with Windows 2000
indefinitely.

--
Will

"Will" wrote in message
...
"Guy Macon" http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote in message
...
"Windows Server 2003 Web Edition, can be used solely to deploy Web
pages, Web sites, Web applications, and Web services."

By the way, until you mentioned this (and I guess I should thank you for
it), I never knew that there were actual licensing restrictions on third
party applications. What's particularly frustrating for me is that we
have had multiple open trouble tickets with Microsoft for that OS, some of
which had Microsoft techs logging into the machine, and never once did
anyone mention those restrictions.

Now I'm faced with rolling back an entire year of planned upgrades, and
I'm
really depressed at the thought that we are now stuck with Windows 2000
indefinitely.

--
Will



why would you even consider putting a server OS on a desktop? I am curious
as to the determination process that resulted in the decision to put 2003
Web Edition as the standard OS on your enduser desktops ..

- LC