M$ Academic Licensing - to "school agreement" or not???

[BatchFile]

We've currently got a Microsoft School Agreement for our 250 or so PCs, in which we count up our computers once a year and pay for them for the year. The advantage of that is that we can then add as many computers as we like without worrying about licenses until the following year - as it covers all machines on site. This costs us about £26.50 per machine (IIRC).

 

The downside is that I've been doing a bit of blue sky thinking recently:nerd: and I'm thinking of (a) buying perpetual licenses to save in the long run, and / or (b) converting some older PCs to thin clients with a terminal server. Under the School Agreement I'd still have to declare the thin clients as you have to declare every PC that is capable of running Windows (AIIRC).

 

Basically what I'm interested in knowing is if anyone has left a School Agreement, why, what you went to and ballpark what it cost:confused:

[CyberNerd]

We left the school agreement some years ago, buying perpetual licenses has saved us many tens of thousands of pounds.

Getting out of the SA has also encouraged us look at non-MS technology, which is often less problematic, has lower maintenance costs and is easier to integrate with other non-MS technologies.

Another plus point of perpetual licensing is that you have more flexibility and are not quite so entrenched into MS's continual upgrade cycle, saving money in the long term with their increasingly high specifications.

 

MS have recently changed their SA licensing model, previously you needed to pay MS for every linux installation or thin client you had. but they have been really kind lately, and now you don't have to pay MS if you don't use their product (nothing to do with a threat of legal action from the EU of course....)

So the saving we made by ditching the SA may not be as much as you would save.

[BatchFile]

We left the school agreement some years ago, buying perpetual licenses has saved us many tens of thousands of pounds.

Getting out of the SA has also encouraged us look at non-MS technology, which is often less problematic, has lower maintenance costs and is easier to integrate with other non-MS technologies.

Another plus point of perpetual licensing is that you have more flexibility and are not quite so entrenched into MS's continual upgrade cycle, saving money in the long term with their increasingly high specifications.

 

MS have recently changed their SA licensing model, previously you needed to pay MS for every linux installation or thin client you had. but they have been really kind lately, and now you don't have to pay MS if you don't use their product (nothing to do with a threat of legal action from the EU of course....)

So the saving we made by ditching the SA may not be as much as you would save.

 

So is it Academic Open that you use now for Microsoft stuff now, or is there something else out there that I've missed completely?

[featured_spectre]

We ditched the SA for XP, and have also gone to buying licences as and when needed. Only thing we do have have an SA for is Office 2003, although that will be stopped in April as we have switched our Entire facility (except the admin dept) to Open Office and Thunderbird.

 

We are switching to Linux soon and we have estimated that not having the licences has saved us £23'000 in the past 2 years, and will save us £6'000 next year. You got a very good deal at £26.50 per PC, our last Network Manager got fleeced by signing up to one that is £189.99 per PC! That did not make many people happy to say the least!

[FragglePete]

You got a very good deal at £26.50 per PC, our last Network Manager got fleeced by signing up to one that is £189.99 per PC! That did not make many people happy to say the least!

:eek:

 

Good Lord!

 

I think ours was about £29 a PC, but that covers all OS Upgrades, Full Office Suite and all necessary CALS for each.

 

I think we paid about £11k this year.

 

It's something I intend to look at closely over the next year. I do believe there is a buy-out rate available to convert your licences, but you have to have been tied in for a certain time.

 

Pete

[jsnetman]

This is something I don't understand about MS licencsing. We buy our machines with an XP Pro licence. Why should you pay again with a subscription to MS. Apperently, and I have been told many times by suppliers they cannot provide a PC without an OS. We simply applied to Ramesys for a volume licence and CD for imaging purposes. Is somebody going to tell me I'm not licensing our comps properly

[john]

I paid £24.99 each per machine this year for my MS Desktop for Schools pack which is the Windows, Office, and Core Cals packs.

[featured_spectre]

:eek:

 

Good Lord!

 

I think ours was about £29 a PC, but that covers all OS Upgrades, Full Office Suite and all necessary CALS for each.

 

I think we paid about £11k this year.

 

It's something I intend to look at closely over the next year. I do believe there is a buy-out rate available to convert your licences, but you have to have been tied in for a certain time.

 

Pete

 

I wasnt there at our school when it happened. When I got there I immediately renegotiated it down to £26.99 per machine, but to say the least the people in charge were not happy he did it in the first place.

[CyberNerd]

So is it Academic Open that you use now for Microsoft stuff now, or is there something else out there that I've missed completely?

 

I've not bought a MS license since about 2004, it's probably changed. Last I remember Ramesys sold us. I think we needed something to say we were a school.

 

I paid £24.99 each per machine this year for my MS Desktop for Schools pack which is the Windows, Office, and Core Cals packs.

 

quick breakdown:

office = £30

Xp = £30

tscals = £10

server/exchange cals = £10 ??

total say £80

 

If you replace/ renew software/hardware every 5 yrs then this should cost £16 per year. but you can be selective about which machines you put it on.

[BatchFile]

This is something I don't understand about MS licencsing. We buy our machines with an XP Pro licence. Why should you pay again with a subscription to MS. Apperently, and I have been told many times by suppliers they cannot provide a PC without an OS. We simply applied to Ramesys for a volume licence and CD for imaging purposes. Is somebody going to tell me I'm not licensing our comps properly

 

AFAIK the Windows licence in the SA covers UPGRADES to windows - you still need an OEM or whatever version, of some kind, to upgrade from. For this reason a few years ago I bought 200 Windows 3.1 licences for 20p each, just in case

 

What it means in practice is that new hardware needs to be bought with the cheapest M$ operating system available, like XP Home or Vista Home Basic depending on which way the wind is blowing, then your upgrade lic covers the rest.

[DMcCoy]

This is something I don't understand about MS licencsing. We buy our machines with an XP Pro licence. Why should you pay again with a subscription to MS. Apperently, and I have been told many times by suppliers they cannot provide a PC without an OS. We simply applied to Ramesys for a volume licence and CD for imaging purposes. Is somebody going to tell me I'm not licensing our comps properly

 

There is no full version of XP/Vista available through any volume license, so for the SA upgrade to apply it needs the base OS license. It can always be XP/Vista home or another qualifying OS (not that there are many, although I think OS X counts).

 

You pay twice (if buying with XP Pro) due to the fact that the Windows upgrade license is part of the core cal suite with schools agreement).

[jsnetman]

There is no full version of XP/Vista available through any volume license

 

I have the volume licence disk and key in front of me. I had to buy a minimum of 10 XP licences to qualify it to be a volume licence.

[CyberNerd]

and I have been told many times by suppliers they cannot provide a PC without an OS.

 

Change your supplier, it depends where you buy your machines.

[DMcCoy]

I have the volume licence disk and key in front of me. I had to buy a minimum of 10 XP licences to qualify it to be a volume licence.

 

The disk is the full version, it's just that every XP/Vista *license* bought through volume licensing is an upgrade license and needs a qualifying product.

[jsnetman]

Change your supplier, it depends where you buy your machines.

 

We use Stone and 3 years ago I tried getting machines with no OS. They just would not do it. I think it's something to do with MS partnership, obviously MS dont want companies selling comps without an OS. If you use smaller oufits then I guess they aren't bound by any agreements.

[powdarrmonkey]

We use Stone and 3 years ago I tried getting machines with no OS. They just would not do it. I think it's something to do with MS partnership, obviously MS dont want companies selling comps without an OS. If you use smaller oufits then I guess they aren't bound by any agreements.

 

Hmm, I'm sure that counts as anti-competitive...

[BatchFile]

Aria and Microdirect both will - but as I say you need something you can "upgrade from", so it's a false economy to buy them totally bare as you'll then need to get "Retail" windows rather than the cheaper OEM version that you can only get with hardware.

[powdarrmonkey]

Aria and Microdirect both will - but as I say you need something you can "upgrade from", so it's a false economy to buy them totally bare as you'll then need to get "Retail" windows rather than the cheaper OEM version that you can only get with hardware.

 

Depends what you're going to put on it. I'm keeping my eyes open for a reasonable priced machine to replace lupin, and I'm certainly not prepared to pay for a Windows license that I'll never use.

[BatchFile]

Depends what you're going to put on it. I'm keeping my eyes open for a reasonable priced machine to replace lupin, and I'm certainly not prepared to pay for a Windows license that I'll never use.

 

I've had the same feelings myself about machines used as print servers etc. I guess it's down to the individual(s) concerned how literally you interpret the rules and how much common sense is employed.

[Willott]

MS have recently changed their SA licensing model, previously you needed to pay MS for every linux installation or thin client you had. but they have been really kind lately, and now you don't have to pay MS if you don't use their product (nothing to do with a threat of legal action from the EU of course....)

 

Do you have a link to this news? I'm looking to go TC on several machines, possibly using our current hardware until I can afford to buy thin clients outright, so could do with using this to reduce costs (I'd only be looking at office, TS CAL and Server CAL, and not OS, so about £8 per seat cheaper, and may then look at outright purchases of CALs/Office).

 

Thanks in advance

[BatchFile]

(Microsoft School Agreement overview: Benefits, products, pricing, membership) Eligible PCs include all of the Pentium III, iMac G3 or equivalent or better computers. You must also include any other computers (such as older Pentium computers) on which any software will be run.

 

So if you run your older PCs as linux clients, you would appear to be ok. I think.

[Willott]

Problem for me is, some of the fat clients are P4s, but all they do is run basis desktop applications, no video editting, sound work, or anything strenuous is done on them, and I'd be looking to replace these in the future. CyberNerd's post seemed to suggest that if running linux, these would not be counted under the agreement, so was wondering where that info came from.

[BatchFile]

me too, now! especially as it appears to be contradicted by the quote in my previous post which came from the M$ website today.....

[Gar]

We use Stone and 3 years ago I tried getting machines with no OS. They just would not do it. I think it's something to do with MS partnership, obviously MS dont want companies selling comps without an OS. If you use smaller oufits then I guess they aren't bound by any agreements.

 

It's nothing to do with a partnership, or any other agreement. The Schools Agreement entitles you to upgrade your OS to the latest version.

 

What you need to be careful of is that most resellers (Insight/Misco etc) don't want to open the box they're shifting, so they'll tell you you have to have the OS that comes on the system. At the moment you should be buying Vista Home Basic (if there are no ridiculous deals on Win95/98 COAs you can find). System builders (like Stone - mentioned above - or Ergo) should always ask if you've got a Schools Agreement and provide the most appropriate (ie. cheapest) OS.