Week 50: New Blogs VCP Exam Guide Review
Dec 22

Microsoft Lies to Their Customers – Again

Licensing, MicrosoftPost by Mike DiPetrilloAdd comments

Over the past couple of weeks I’ve seen a trend at customer sites. Nearly every customer I visited in the New York city area told me the same thing when the competition was brought up. It went something like this:

Customer: I would love to use VMware but the cost savings in Windows licenses from Microsoft with Hyper-V makes it a deal I can’t pass up.

Me: What do you mean by that? Licenses cost you the same for Windows no matter what virtualization solution you’re using.

Customer: That’s not what my Microsoft rep told me. They said I could get unlimited virtual machines with Datacenter Edition of Windows only if I used Hyper-V.

Me: Ah. I see. You know, they’re lying to you, right?

Customer: No. They never lie to me. Where’s the proof.

I then continue the conversation and point to the data below directly from Microsoft’s website. The customer has an “ah, ha” moment and we conclude the deal for VMware software and Microsoft gets a nice black eye. This has happened so many times at so many customers that one of two things is happening:

1) All of these customers has the same rep and they just haven’t been educated on the right licensing rights.
2) Microsoft is relying on the gullibility of their customers to take advantage of them and lead them to purchasing the inferior Hyper-V solution.

I want to believe that it’s just a lack of education since Microsoft licensing is complex. However, when I run into this over and over again I’ve got to draw the conclusion that Microsoft is just outright lying to their customers to try and get them to use Hyper-V. Truthfully I hope this continues since it’s real easy to point to the correct material, give Microsoft a black eye, and get Microsoft out of the account quickly and easily.

So for those playing along at home. Here’s the part where I show you where to find the correct information on Microsoft’s site.



Windows Server 2008: Microsoft Licensing FAQ for Windows Server 2008 clearly states the following.
 

Q.  Do the virtualization licensing rights of Windows Server 2008 apply when used with non-Microsoft software virtualization technologies?

A: Yes. The use rights apply regardless of the virtualization product being used.

 
Windows Server 2003: Page 7 of the “Licensing Microsoft Windows Server 2003 R2 to Run with Virtualization Technologies” document also states the following.
 

If you have assigned a single license of Windows Server Standard Edition to the server running ESX, then you may run one instance at a time of Windows Server Standard Edition. If you have assigned a single license of Windows Server Enterprise Edition to the server running ESX, then you may run up to four instances at a time of Windows Server. You may not run a fifth instance under the same Enterprise Edition license because that right requires that the fifth instance be running hardware virtualization software and software managing and servicing the OSEs on the server. However, Datacenter Edition permits unlimited running of instances in virtual OSEs.

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
VN:F [1.4.5_712]
Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)

  • Since, no doubt, the salesman is on a commission, it is in his interest to pull the wool over the eyes of the customer. Since Microsoft clearly states that you can use the same licensing model on any virtualistation platform. They just don't support it (which is the next sentence that you left off). If the customer was asking for support as well, then the salesman is within his rights to say that they have to use Hyper-V.
    Surely it's the salesman who is misleading the customer, not Microsoft.
    Just because you get one bad apple, doesn't mean the whole tree is rotten. I would be inclined to either point out the error to the salesman, if that fails, report it to his superior.
  • "They just don't support it (which is the next sentence that you left off)."

    Uh, I left out that sentence since VMware *is* supported by Microsoft under SVVP. Maybe you missed that when your Microsoft rep was talking to you. :)

    I would love to believe it was the salesman and was being really kind in this post. In fact I've seen this all over the globe. I get emails from other VMware people reporting the same thing over and over and over again. This last trip to New York just tipped the bucket on me reporting it. Maybe now that Microsoft knows VMware people are watching and this plan is back firing on them they'll stop. Doesn't really matter either way to me since it sets them up for failure pretty quickly.
  • Hmm, that's a pretty bold call Mike. Lying is a pretty nasty accusation, and you would want to be pretty sure of yourself when you make that call. Personally I have had the licensing conversation with many of my customers and have told them that the virtualisation use rights with both Windows Server & SMSE apply regardless of whether you're running VMware, Hyper-V, Xen, Virtuozzo.

    The one licensing question I might ask of VMware is: why do VMware not always advise their customers that there are licensing implications of VDI?

    Cheers
    Stu
    Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft NZ, the opinions posted above are mine and not those of my employer.
    Further disclaimer: Licensing can be complicated (especially if you don't read the product use rights documents) and you should make sure you engage the appropriate resource to make sure you understand the licensing implications of what you do. Regardless of vendor.
  • Yes, lying is a big acquisition. However, I have a TON of emails from Microsoft people to their customer stating this very fact so it's something easy to back up. Like I said, when this first started happening I thought the same as you - one bad apple. Microsoft licensing is complex so I'll give them a by. When it started showing up in emails from Microsoft reps and "licensing experts" I started to become alarmed. When it showed up in a Microsoft presentation I decided to call them on it.

    And yes, there are licensing implications to VDI but those too are equal no matter which vendor you choose. VECD (and other ways to license VDI) is very complex so I haven't gone there in a blog post yet. Bottom line is if you're trying to justify VDI on CapEx savings you're going to fail if you're running Windows desktops. Microsoft has made it so costly with VECD that it's ridiculous. This is why I've started several Linux desktop pilots with customers wanting to get away from exorbitant Microsoft licensing practices.
  • smj
    It's funny you're taking such a high road here for VMWare. When I worked at Connectix there was a lot of VMWare sales staff lying to customers about Virtual PC and it's imagined limitations, like there is no standard networking capabilities and that's why VPC needed the VM additions Shared Networking feature to communicate with the host.
    There were plenty of others from your sales team too, but you get my point.
    VMWare isn't some saintly company with perfect sales staff.
  • Yeah, no sales teams are perfect. Just pointing it out since it's so wide spread. Sorry you got beat up by our sales team. Actually, not really sorry - that's competition. You can see from other comments below that it happens all over.
  • Noel
    It's not surprising that mistakes are made. In some other places, customers are shared with the correct information. :-)
  • Mike,

    Great post, and I can totally relate to what you are saying. I’m not really into this “cold war” between Microsoft & VMware, but I couldn’t help to reply. I work for an enterprise over here in the Gulf, and every now and then I ran into a similar misleading information from a Microsoft rep, the last thing was when they were assuring us their products are not supported from Microsoft under the VMware ESX platforms, and when I send them the SVVP links (and even the fact that ESX was the first hypervisor to achieve their certification) I got no response, none.

    I don’t know if this is just an ignorance from the MS rep or it’s kind of a strategy Microsoft is having (I hate conspiracy theories) but in all cases misleading information is not something very good, and we’ve learnt that we have to double check on anything that comes from Microsoft especially if it’s related to the virtualization.
  • Hi Mike,

    Feeding this kind of info into customers isn't acceptable, but this isn't an accurate reporesentation of all of us! :-)

    This is shocking, and frankly, really disappointing. Whenever I'm out with Partners / Customers, I always reinforce the fact that Microsoft Virtualisation licensing around the Windows Server OS, Windows Client OS for VDI (VECD) and the Management Suite (SMSe) are Virtualisation agnostic, and there are no licensing advantages choosing one over the other in terms of guest OS's. I also reinforce that with VMware's inclusion into the SVVP, so we're all equal on support etc. If customers have already made investments in VMware's platform, there's no point going in with a gung-ho rip and replace attitude as it's going to get us nowhere - my approach is to maximise their current investments in their technology, and compliment that with technologies that can wrap around their current platform and drive them forward in the future, like, the Datacenter license for future growth, or the SMSe for a granular level of management and monitoring around their virtual and physical estates.

    On the SVVP - VMware are only listed with 3.5 Update 2 - do you know if they are working on U3 to pass the tests, and on more varied hardware?

    VECD isn't as complex as you may think you know, and it works out a hell of a lot cheaper than using Full Packaged Product does! Do you think a blog post like my Licensing Windows Server in a Virtual Environment is the order of the day? Would you find that useful?

    Matt
  • Matt,

    I'm glad there's a few good Microsoft people out there. Actually there's a lot of great Microsoft people out there that do try and tell the truth. I know a lot of them. They're people like you. I just hope the bad apples don't end up taking over - that's the trend I've been seeing. Hopefully we can all work together to straighten them out.

    As for SVVP, U3 has been done for some time. Larger memory has been done for some time. I'm sure you'll see an update to the Microsoft site soon for both configurations. Not sure what you meant about more varied hardware since anything with a XEON or Opteron chip is covered. SVVP doesn't list out specific servers - just broad configurations. Perhaps you meant more memory for the guest and like I said, that's coming.

    Yes, VECD is definitely the way you want to go for VDI but a lot of customers have OEM licenses and no Software Assurance on their desktops. I'd say that's the case 95% of the time when I talk to people. For these customers they need to purchase their OS license all over again, buy Software Assurance for the first time on the desktops, and then pay for VECD. That's unreasonable for most. VECD is also tied to a device which doesn't make it very flexible for people setting up training devices or customers with more devices than people that need access. For VECD to be really effective Microsoft should allow people to grandfather in their existing OEM licenses for free and then also provide the option to assign the license to a user or device much like a TS CAL. For a lot of environments the FPP method with a 1:1 assignment actually works out considerably cheaper than VECD. But yes, a good post about VECD scenarios and licensing would be awesome. You did a great job on the Windows Server side. One last thing you might want to think about is how to license the applications in a VDI environment. Again you get killed by Office licenses because of the stupid "tied to a device" model.
  • Hi Mike,

    OK, I'll make sure I produce a post on VECD in the new year, as there are more changes afoot with regards to flexibility around VECD. I'll get Emma Healey involved too.

    I think sometimes Microsoft finds itself between a rock and a hard place with licensing and updating models - you have to make changes to embrace new and upcoming technologies, but at the same time, not tread on the toes of customers who've embraced (either through choice, or not) the licenses already. Like I said though, changes are afoot for VECD.

    Again, personally, I think VECD lends itself better to Thin Clients, where the customers is making savings with going green, and the licensing is a little more expensive than VECD for SA, but cheaper than Win Client + SA + VECD for SA.

    I do agree about the per-device licensing - it would be more flexible if things like Office followed a user, and who knows, it may happen. The thing about VECD that I do like, is if you have users who need more than 1 virtual desktop at the same time, like a trader for example, VECD allows that VECD-assigned-device to connect to up to 4 virtual desktops at once. In the physical world, if these all had Office installed, that would be 4 x Office licenses, but because they are virtual desktops, you assign the Office license to the end point device, and all 4 of the virtual desktops get Office, so in some ways, it works out pretty well, yet others, it doesn't.

    With regards to SVVP and varied hardware - I was having a dumb-moment and thought the memory listed on the site was in the physical box, and not in the VM - doh! But yes, more VM memory would be great, from a customer perspective!

    I'm signing off for Xmas now (and signing on to Xbox :-)) so have a good one, and I'll post after Xmas.

    Matt
  • Thanks for all of the candid information about VECD. Can't wait for your post. Is Emma Healey the same person as Lady Licensing Emma? She's awesome!

    I can understand the concern when you thought SVVP was host memory based. That would be pretty horrible numbers to post! :) What's funny is the test setup required to get certified for 16 GB of RAM per VM needs 128 GB of RAM in the host to run the test harness and VM setup. This is one of the things that held back larger memory certifications since it's really tricky getting your hands on a box that supports 256 GB, 512 GB, or 1 TB of RAM.

    Can't wait for the new year and new opportunities! Should be an interesting year.
  • Mike Robinson
    Mike,

    I generally like Microsoft but in this virtualization area I'm more of a VMWare fan. Having said that, its probable that the "Microsoft Rep" - which could be an MS employee or a reseller "specialist" might just not know. I guess with virtualization so prevalent thats somewhat lame, but Microsoft seems to have an endless and changing number of licensing programs. I honestly think they are trying to do the right thing but there are just so many licensing models.

    My big beef in the virtual arena is not so much with Microsoft's company line, its the weird way a lot of employees/bloggers/"exprerts" relay the information. Some of them sound like Microsoft invented the whole virtual concept.
  • Even G
    I have seen this in person as well (here in Norway), so it is definitely not just a bad apple salesperson in the big apple :)

    However, this goes to the general bucket of "don't ask a encyclopedia-salesman whether you need an encyclopedia". Don't ask Microsoft about whether you should choose their virtualization-engine over that of the competition; research and decide for yourself using several inputs.

    Kind regards,
    Even G
  • My job is more of consulting which provide me opportunity to interact with many clients. When it comes for recommendation for server consolidation I only name VMWare. Then the next Q I get is why only VMWare?” I eat/sleep/drink VMWare, it is like a religion to me. I have seen enough discussion and know business model of MS. No matter how good you are in marketing but fundamental for any company matters. I do not consider myself as Geek but have seen many version of VMWare which gives me enough reason to believe that VMWare is a awesome technologies and if you need to compete with such technologies you need to get matured in that technologies. Just lunching product does not guaranty your maturity.” Having said all this I am not a blind follower of VMware.
  • SRP
    The one I love from Microsoft is that Hyper-V is FREE. Really? Don't I need Windows Server 2008 to run the Hyper-V application? If I have an ELA I'm OK, but that still is not FREE. I can download the Hyper-V application for FREE, but need to 'purchase' Windows Server 2008 in order to run it. So I looked online to 'purchase' Windows Server 2008 and this what I found...

    Microsoft also released the pricing list for the server: Windows Server 2008 Standard, $999 (with five Client Access Licenses, or CALs); Standard without Hyper-V, $971 (with five CALs); Enterprise, $3,999 (with 25 CALs); Enterprise without Hyper-V, $3,971 (with 25 CALs); Datacenter, $2,999 (per processor); Datacenter without Hyper-V, $2,971 (per processor); Windows Server 2008 for Itanium-based Systems, $2,999 (per processor); and Windows Web Server 2008, $469.

    This may be somewhat dated because I don't make it a habit to keep up with Microsoft, but the point here is the 'without Hyper-V'. Why is there a difference in price? If Hyper-V is FREE why is there a 'with' @ $999 and a 'without' @ $971? FREE is FREE right? Does ESXi cost me anything? Is there anything I need to 'purchase' in order to run ESXi? No and no - a great example of FREE!
    It appears Microsoft is attempting to change the definition of the word 'FREE'...
blog comments powered by Disqus