16 replies to this topic

[phlatline]

So I'm trying to buy a copy of 2003 Standard and running into all these different CALs I can buy.
So my understanding is that 2003 Standard comes with a 5 connection CAL (5 users or machines).

What I don't know is what that means.
I would assume that means that only 5 machines (or users) can connect to the server at any given time, but if that is the case why does exchange and user drive mappings to network shares work?
What is and isn't a connection that requires a CAL?

[bobbba]

the CALs are a legal requirement not a technical requirement.

[kcherasaro]

CAL = Client Access License. I am sure a rep can get you what you need based on your requirements.

[Prophecy]

The Simple easy way as I understand it is.
For every machine connected to the Domain at any one time (I.E 10 Workstations = 10 CALS)
However if you are running exchange then you are supposed to have 1 CAL per USER

[Premgenius]

I would call the Microsoft Licensing and talk to a rep who will ask you a few questions and tell you how many you need.

[Prophecy]

10 CALS per 10 Workstations
except with exchange, dont call MS

[majortom1981]

Ok so here is how it works.

You can either have user cals or device cals.

Each user or for each computer.

Say you have 100 computers but only 50 people who use them. You would be better off getting a 50 user cal.

if you have 2 comps that 4 people use then you are better off getting device cals.

[randomnut]

A CAL is the great microsoft rip off. You need a CAL for each aspect a client will access. Say you're running exchange, you need a CAL license for the user to access exchange and also a CAL for each user for windows server. Running SQL on top of that? Thats yet another pricey CAL on top of the software prices you've already paid...

[AR556]

CALs are indeed a ripoff. I can't believe no one told MS to go "beep" themselves the first time they were pitched as a requirement. When you buy a Server OS, you're expecting to connect user/machines to it. Its extortion plain and simple.

[bobbba]

Try growing up, commercial software is priced according to the market and CAL's are perfect for many customers requirements and MS is just being flexible by reflecting that.

Small 10 user organisation wanting SQL server:

Per processor license: £3250
or
Server license and 10 CAL's: £1500

See the benefit now?

[randomnut]

Being flexible? ha, who are you trying to kid? Having to pay software costs PLUS cals for each level of software on a server is an unbelieveable rip off. Maybe if they ditched the original cost of the software it would be understandable but it's just money for old rope.

[bobbba]

If MS went with the "here's the software for free, just pay for the CAL's" model it would work right up until you had an organisation that "forgot" to buy the CAL's or you had a scenario where there was little or no client connections.

If you'd prefer the single cost regardless of scale model, as an organisation with 7000+ PC's we'd be with you, however the charity whose IT we support with 10 PC's would not.

MS is not alone in offering CAL licenses and many other IT companies use this model like Citrix for example and given the alternative of some of horrifically expensive per product licenses that you get (Oracle for example) I'm pretty sure what most would prefer.

[randomnut]

bobbba, on May 1 2008, 15:39, said:

If MS went with the "here's the software for free, just pay for the CAL's" model it would work right up until you had an organisation that "forgot" to buy the CAL's or you had a scenario where there was little or no client connections.

That problem exists even now so it is not something that happens all of a sudden because of that business model. IMO paying for CALs only is the only fair way you can really licence software like that considering how many you need to buy for each user just to access something like exchange or a sql based tool. MS know they've got users over a barell and that's the only reason they charge for the same thing so many times over.

[AR556]

bobbba, on May 1 2008, 08:29, said:

Try growing up, commercial software is priced according to the market and CAL's are perfect for many customers requirements and MS is just being flexible by reflecting that.

Small 10 user organisation wanting SQL server:

Per processor license: £3250
or
Server license and 10 CAL's: £1500

See the benefit now?

Yea, charging per CPU is another idiotic practice. Maybe if you're running a super computer, but not everyday Servers. I have no problem paying for software but I do have a real problem being nickle and dimed to death. CALs are a rip off whether you choose to believe it or not. What this "Priced according to market" nonsense you speak of? Its more like pure greed from where most people sit. Don't get me wrong, I like MS but if they spent half of their time actually listening to what people want and stop trying to continually empty the wallets of their customers while accusing them of piracy the whole time (WGA) things would be much better for them.

[bobbba]

For back office SQL servers for web sites the CPU model makes sense and I'd still call that an everyday setup for many businesses.

These points all seem to be simply saying that MS charge too much for software and continually look for ways to make more money, isn't that how business works??? How is MS any different from Apple, Oracle, Citrix and nearly ever other commercial software developer out there?

MS is just an easy target for these MS sux comments because of their market position. This makes their products almost a must have which in turn makes people resent having to pay for it (it seems like a tax) even if the costs are comparitive with the competition.

The fair criticisms of MS are on their behaviour with competitors and the lack of interopability with their products from other vendors. If the platform was more open there would be more alternatives and it would be clear then that there pricing and licensing is pretty much the same as every other vendors.