Re: Controversial paper - Good response article on ZDNet

From: George Ou (533george_ou234_at_netzero234.com)
Date: 10/17/03 

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:54:08 GMT

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:45:50 GMT, Mack
<macckone@a_nospamjunk123_ol.com> wrote:
>The figures for microsoft come DIRECTLY from microsoft.
>Are you saying that microsofts own website doesn't know
>what it is talking about?

I'm telling you from personal experience. Go for the $250 per
indident rate.

>>>Windows 2003 server starts at $999
>>
>>Bull,
>>
>>$430 for for most "Select" customers for Standard edition.
>>$220 for Web edition (good for most things with fewer services
>>installed)
>And how many copies do I have to buy? Would that be 250?
>I am certain RedHat will give a better deal. Try contacting them.
>Web server (Select Level A) from the above web page is $349.
>This requires 1500 points. How does that translate in real terms?
>100 copies?

No, probably quantities of 50 servers for most small to medium size
businesses will get you a $460 and $250 rate. It's a sliding scale.

If you're a small business, there is SBS 2003, which is a pretty sweet
deal.

For business users, you can now get a free home license if your work
place is licensed.

The security of Windows 2003 by most standards is pretty good. The
feature list all of which I use saves me a lot of money, especially
the RADIUS, Certificate Authority, and VPN server services.

Of course, these prices and better products would probably not be
possible without the pressure from OSS, and that's how I like it. Why
mess up this equilibrium with stupid government or legal intervention?

>The web server license is really restrictive:
> Installations of non-Web serving applications are prohibited.
>from ->
>http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/evaluation/overview/web.mspx

Just about anything could be "defined" as a web serving or application
server application.

"For non-Web serving applications, you should consider Windows Server
2003, Standard Edition." doesn't sound too restricting to me.

>>>The enterprise edition is $3999 without a support
>>>contract. This is cheaper how exactly?
>>
>>$1500 for "select" customers. I almost never use this edition unless
>>I need to Cluster. Network load ballancing is included in the other
>>2.
>So what you are saying is the Enterprise edition is the
>same price as Redhat Enterprise? That is if you
>buy enough licenses.

No. I hope you know better than that or are you being devious? The
"Enterprise" edition of Windows refers to very high end features. The
"Enterprise" in reference to the $1500 in Redhat is an enterprise
support agreement.

George Ou
http://www.LANArchitect.net

Relevant Pages

  • Re: MOSS Enterprise vs. Standard
    ... So ignore Forms Server for right now. ... Standard or Enterprise from a server point of view is determined by what ... words it's a copy taken from that Microsoft paper (which even includes the ...
    (microsoft.public.sharepoint.portalserver)
  • setup a business network
    ... -Exchange Server ... Microsoft Server 2003 R2 Standard, ... Microsoft Server 2003 R2 Enterprise, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Unterschiede Standard / Enterprise
    ... wie ich auf der Microsoft Seite lesen konnte, ... vom Microsoft Windows 2003 Standard zum Enterprise wirklich nur mehr ... Den Enterprise Server kann ich ja auf einem Host-PC installieren, sowie auf, ...
    (microsoft.public.de.german.windows.server.general)
  • Re: setup a business network
    ... -Exchange Server ... Microsoft Server 2003 R2 Standard, ... Microsoft Server 2003 R2 Enterprise, ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Office slows down at the end of the day
    ... Let me start by saying that I have reviewed the threads here, ... Microsoft and others before I thought to present the problem here. ... Network is on Server 2000. ... Have deleted the DATA files for Office in the Registry. ...
    (microsoft.public.office.misc)