EES now does not include server platform, costs almost twice as much now

[san_narula]

Our MS licensing is due this month so I received a reminder from our reseller. I thought of doing the usual stuff which is to just calculate the FTE numbers but then noticed that it looks different this time. After reading it carefully, I realised that the server products are not included in the base license anymore and you have to pay extra for them. This almost doubles the price for us and will be more than double for many other schools depending upon what they have installed.

 

I have gone back to our reseller and have been told that we do not have a choice as they have already tried to negotiate with MS three times without any success. Moreover, I have been told that it is a global increase so I assume school in all parts of the world are affected by this. I have also looked at the outright purchase option but this is going to cost a fortune and being a small school we can not afford to do so.

 

I believe it is ridiculous how MS have decided to suddenly increase its licensing costs without any notice at all. Since last year, I have been reading about MS increasing prices for others but did not expect it coming to us. I think they are trying to cover the Windows 8(and free Windows 10 upgrade) losses which is not justified. This looks like a bait and switch to me as they gave us unlimited licenses for most server products and then once schools started using them thinking they do not cost anything extra, MS wants money for it now. Fortunately, I did not go too far with this and have only setup exchange with the enterprise license which I will change to standard now but I believe with some of the other products you can not go back. I almost started loving MS this time but they just do not deserve it.

 

I would like to know if this has happened to schools in other countries as well and how much your ICT budget will be affected by this.

[craigw]

I'm a bit confused (I always am when it comes to MS licencing)...I have been on various forms of Campus / School agreement / EES for the last 12 years and have always had to licence the actual server separately?

The CALS required for the clients came under the desktop CAL as part of EES - but the server licence was separate (but dirt cheap - about uS$50 per standard Wins server per year - exchange around US$350). Am I on the same page or are you talking about something else entirely?

What has changed this year is the move in SQL licencing from per server to per core which has been a big increase...but that is another story..

Wally

[xenonive]

I'm the same I've always got separate server license along with SQL licenses.

[sonofsanta]

Ours went up, and there was some reshuffling of products - I think Datacenter shifted from being per core to per dual-core, so you need half as many licences, except the per-dual-core licence is more than twice as much as the old per core - but we've always had to licence our server OS on top of EES (over three years now). Only about £30 p.a. for a Standard Server licence though; SQL is the biggest server expense.

 

I have to wonder if your reseller advised you incorrectly in the first place and you've not been fully licensed in the past, and now they're trying to cover their tracks...

[smithson83]

...I think Datacenter shifted from being per core to per dual-core, so you need half as many licences...

 

As far as I was aware a Datacenter Licence covers two physical processors, not cores. Two physical CPU's = 1 licence (on one server), 4 CPU's = 2 Licences. But Two Servers each with one CPU = 2 Licences.

 

That said, with regards to the OP's post, we started our OVS-EES two years ago, server licences were separate, we got two WinSvrDC Lic's and 60 FTE Desktop Lic's

[Arthur]

As far as I was aware a Datacenter Licence covers two physical processors, not cores.

Correct.

 

http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=13042

[TechMonkey]

We renewed ours in September and although there was an increase there wasn't anything that made us choke on our cornflakes. I wonder if SonofSanta is right.

[sonofsanta]

As far as I was aware a Datacenter Licence covers two physical processors, not cores. Two physical CPU's = 1 licence (on one server), 4 CPU's = 2 Licences. But Two Servers each with one CPU = 2 Licences.

 

I knew it was something like that...

 

Microsoft Licensing: the only company to make giving them money so hard, they have to offer training courses in it.

[smithson83]

Microsoft Licensing: the only company to make giving them money so hard, they have to offer training courses in it.

 

I wonder if Apple has "an app for that"

[san_narula]

Alright, then it means we were just getting an exceptional deal which has somehow ended. So sad for all the private schools here. I imagine someone with very good negotiation skills was able to negotiate an `all you can eat ` deal with MS but we have now been left into limbo because of all this. I am 100% sure that our reseller did not advise us incorrectly as they liaise directly with MS and sell it exclusively. I also spoke to our rep today who told me that she has received countless queries in last week or so due this change.

[localzuk]

We've used Schools Agreement and OVS-ES since I've worked in schools, and the server products have always been excluded from the "base" cost - the base cost is the "desktop upgrade bundle" and has pretty much always covered the same things - Windows, Office and the core CALs pack (which has varied a little, with the more recent addition of SCCM licenses and Forefront licenses). SQL CALs are separate too. That said, server licenses have never really been an issue, as they are such a small part of it all, they barely make up 10% of our MS licensing costs.

 

So, I'm not sure if things were different in Australia, but they were never like that here.

 

Microsoft has put prices up across the board for their software and services. Their premium support tickets have gone up by about 90%+, for example. They are simply changing direction as a company, and changing where they make their money.

[san_narula]

Just to clarify, not everything was included for example SQL was always excluded and there were couple of others which weren't but most others were. But now after knowing that others are already paying the same I am feeling a bit better mentally but it does not make any difference financially.

[localzuk]

I know the feeling. Our MS costs have gone up by about 60% in about 4 years, quite a jump really. Plus we've had to pay out a huge amount to license SMART Notebook too, which has basically eaten most of our ICT development budget. Licenses are a pain.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Sorry to hi-jack this but got me slightly concerned now.

 

We have the following agreement -

 

The Microsoft Education Desktop Platform Licence (with Core CAL suite) provides licensing for the

following:

 Windows 7 Enterprise upgrade

 Microsoft Office Pro Plus

 Microsoft Core CAL Suite:

Includes Windows Server Standard CAL, Exchange Server Standard CAL, SharePoint

Server Standard CAL, Lync Server Standard CAL, System Center Endpoint Protection, and

System Centre Configuration Manager Client Management License.

 

Should we be licensing our servers separate? We have a 2012 DC acting as a KMS that has activated anything on the network running 2012 / Win 7 and below. I inherited the current licensing and have just always assumed it was 'right' as it worked.

[localzuk]

If you *only* get your licenses via your volume license agreement, then yes, you should be licensing your servers individually too. However, as you've inherited it, are you sure that single licenses haven't been bought separately?

[smithson83]

Should we be licensing our servers separate?

 

In short, Yes, you are currently not covered for your servers. Have a look in your VLSC under Licence Summary, it will show you what you have a licence for

[san_narula]

Sorry to hi-jack this but got me slightly concerned now.

 

We have the following agreement -

 

 

 

Should we be licensing our servers separate? We have a 2012 DC acting as a KMS that has activated anything on the network running 2012 / Win 7 and below. I inherited the current licensing and have just always assumed it was 'right' as it worked.

 

The only way to be sure about your licensing is by checking with your reseller. Last year when I signed up EES I found that there are in reality so many different variations of EES. As an example there are different EES agreements here for coherently schools, catholic schools and private schools. Then private schools in other states may have a different agreement.

This probably applies to most countries so eventually there are 100s of variations of just EES. come on MICROSOFT.

[DevilsAdvocate]

If you *only* get your licenses via your volume license agreement, then yes, you should be licensing your servers individually too. However, as you've inherited it, are you sure that single licenses haven't been bought separately?

 

 

I'm 99% certain that no single licenses have been purchased. This would explain the difficulty i've had getting a new 2012 R2 DC to activate using the keys on our VLSC.

 

 

In short, Yes, you are currently not covered for your servers. Have a look in your VLSC under Licence Summary, it will show you what you have a licence for

 

The trouble with this is the agreement was done with Service Birmingham and according to them all schools in the agreement see everything, even things they aren't licensed to use.

 

[localzuk]

If that is the loadout for Service Birmingham, then they have very few server licenses for anyone at all!!! I'd be querying it if I were you!

[smithson83]

@DevilsAdvocate that seems like a mess and a headache, when is your renewal? I'd be tempted to break away from it and get in talks with some suppliers and set up your own agreement.

[DevilsAdvocate]

Our 3 year agreement ends June 2015. I had every intention of coming away from Service Birmingham anyway as our Academy sponsor has their own EES agreement in place. I think again that is a 'shared' VLSC situation though.

[AdamzB]

I'm 99% certain that no single licenses have been purchased. This would explain the difficulty i've had getting a new 2012 R2 DC to activate using the keys on our VLSC.

 

 

 

 

The trouble with this is the agreement was done with Service Birmingham and according to them all schools in the agreement see everything, even things they aren't licensed to use.

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]27823[/ATTACH]

 

Does indeed look like Service Birmingham have not licensed you either. Might not be wise advertising this fact on the internet. Also I doubt Service Birmingham would be happy you posting captures of their VLSC.

[jmak]

Sorry to hi-jack this but got me slightly concerned now.

 

We have the following agreement -

 

 

 

Should we be licensing our servers separate? We have a 2012 DC acting as a KMS that has activated anything on the network running 2012 / Win 7 and below. I inherited the current licensing and have just always assumed it was 'right' as it worked.

 

To me those details suggest that you have CALs, ie a licence to connect the desktop clients to the server, but not a licence for the server OS itself.

 

MS licencing seems like a royal PITA to me and I always feel slightly nervous that either I'm paying too much or not buying enough licences. I'm sure it makes sense to someone!