Softxpand Miniframe

[dhicks]

As far as i understand it especially if the network is done via device cals, it should only be 1 licence per machine but i hate licensing stuff and it always confuses me. I can see there might be an issue, 1 license being split into 5 virtual machines and such and the guy at ms did say that if that is their determination then it should have licenses for each VM.

 

See this thread for more details:

 

http://www.edugeek.net/forums/hardware/35205-softxpand-system.html

 

tmcd35 and I spoke to our MS resellers, who both seemed to have come back with the same reply - to license a four-workstation SoftXPand system you could buy an (upgrade) copy of Windows Vista Enterprise, which allows four VMs to be run from one instance. You would also need a full copy of Windows XP. So you need to buy your original PC with Windows Vista on it, an upgrade to Windows Vista Enterprise (around £40, I think) and a copy of Windows XP (£100). That's really not bad at all - around £200 would cover you for a 6/8 workstation machine, then you've just got to buy the original PC (what, £500?) and some extra graphics cards (3 at £30 each?) and you're sorted.

 

The other option is that the SoftXpand system is made to work on Windows Server, then you can use standard CAL licensing as you would for a TS server.

 

Anyone any idea how licensing for Windows 7 works? I could have sworn the idea was that it would come with a licensed copy of Windows XP embedded as a virtual machine - would one "Enterprise" copy of Windows 7 cover a bunch of virtual machines, do you reckon?

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

Anyone any idea how licensing for Windows 7 works? I could have sworn the idea was that it would come with a licensed copy of Windows XP embedded as a virtual machine - would one "Enterprise" copy of Windows 7 cover a bunch of virtual machines, do you reckon?

 

--

David Hicks

 

My guess would be that the license with Windows 7 Professional is 1 virtual XP only. The License with Windows 7 Enterprise is 4 virtual machines of any Windows Version up to and including Windows 7.

[dhicks]

My guess would be that the license with Windows 7 Professional is 1 virtual XP only. The License with Windows 7 Enterprise is 4 virtual machines of any Windows Version up to and including Windows 7.

 

Yes, but I understood that Windows XP came "embedded" somehow inside Windows 7. If you buy one copy of Windows 7 Enterprise does that cover you for running four copies of the Windows XP VM without having to go out and buy a separate copy of Windows XP?

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

Yes, I would have thought so. At least that's how I've licensed SoftXpand using Windows Vista Enterprise.

 

My understanding is that the Select license gives you downgrade rights to use any previous 'business class' OS (3.11/98/NT4/2000 Pro/XP Pro/Vista Bus/7 Pro) up to and including the version you have a select license for.

 

The enterprise edition gives you the Windows License for itself and 4 virtual machines - 5 Windows Licenses in total.

 

So with a Windows 7 Enterprise Edition license you could run 5 copies (1 system + 4 virtual) of Windows XP instead of running Windows 7.

 

For the machine I'm building I bought a Vista Business OEM license + a Vista Enterprise License. The Enterprise License is an 'upgrade' license to I needed the OEM to upgrade from. Although I bough Vista license I'm using the select agreement downgrade rights to run XP as the host OS for SoftXpand.

[Bluetooth]

But what about those of us who dont use vista at all? purely xp across all my schools currently.

[tmcd35]

But what about those of us who dont use vista at all? purely xp across all my schools currently.

 

You can still purchase the Vista (or 7) Enterprise license but not install Vista(/7). Stick with XP - that's what the downgrade rights are for. The license is the important part. Once you've got that you can pretty much run whichever OS you like.

[verygreenpc]

Bluetooth, did M$ come back to you yet....? Another 650 boxes shipped this month all with 1 copy of XP guys.

[Butuz]

All very well shipping 650 boxes per month - not going to be much use is MS say it's illegal and you have to un-ship them!

 

Butuz

[verygreenpc]

Butuz, who are M$ to make the law!? You're right though, UK penetration is getting higher daily. After meeting with John Suffolk the Government CIO yesterday, we've got their support & have taken legal advice ourselves already so are confident in our offering. That's not to say it'd be a nice thing for M$ to come out one way or another to appease the most important side of the equation which are the customes. Our stance is 1 copy of the OS, and 1 per seat of application software. In wales I think SoftXpand has been rebranded as "Hydra"?

[dhicks]

After meeting with John Suffolk the Government CIO yesterday, we've got their support & have taken legal advice ourselves already so are confident in our offering.

 

I'm sure your shipped boxes properly meet the licensing requirements for Microsoft's OEM manufacteruers (i.e. one box, one copy of Windows), but it's going to be the responsibility of each individual school to ensure they are properly licensed. As tmcd35 has pointed out, for a 6 or 8 workstation machine this would seem to simply involve buying a Windows Vista Business upgrade license and a couple of Vista Enterprise Licenses, which comes in quite reasonably at under £200 for the lot at educational pricing.

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

Also EULA it self would not come under criminal law. You bought a copy of Windows, so it's not piracy/theft. If M$ were truely unhappy they'd have to take you to a civil court. As far as I'm aware this has never been done. It's very similar to the who hackintosh scene. Apple EULA states 'only on Apple hardware'. A case is going through in the states against Psystar to test this. A separate case would need to be brought over here to test the 'legality' of the EULA in our courts.

 

Something tells me that M$ are unlikely to bring civil action against any school any time soon for using SoftXpand. Can you imagine the publicity.

 

As far as I'm concerned I'm happy using this until either M$ threaten us directly with the lawyers or a test case is brought against another SoftXpand end user and the complaint is held up by the courts.

 

So long as you have your licenses covered I can't see the problem in using this. As far as I can tell the Window Enterprise Edition will cover upto 5 licenses.

[verygreenpc]

Cheers David, thanks Terry. I'd be gutted if the worst case scenario happened but legally we've secured the argument, now it's time to cover our end users.

[dhicks]

As far as I can tell the Window Enterprise Edition will cover upto 5 licenses.

 

I thought there was something in the EULA that stated that if you used the virtual copies of Windows you could only use the "base" copy of Windows to run the virtual machines? This would seem to imply that you're okay for 4 "workstation" licenses per copy of Windows Enterprise Edition.

 

--

David Hicks

[dhicks]

now it's time to cover our end users.

 

It's the end user's responsibility to cover themselves as regards licensing. It'd be nice if you could get a nice, clear, definitive statement out of Microsoft so those of us extra-paranoid about licensing can reassure ourselves that we are properly covered.

 

--

David Hicks

[tmcd35]

I thought there was something in the EULA that stated that if you used the virtual copies of Windows you could only use the "base" copy of Windows to run the virtual machines? This would seem to imply that you're okay for 4 "workstation" licenses per copy of Windows Enterprise Edition.

 

--

David Hicks

 

To be honest, haven't read the EULA word for word. Just picking up bits and pieces from across the net (as you do). To be honest I can't see this as a problem. 99.999% of the time you are going to want either a 4, 6 or 8 user system. I can't think why you'd go for an odd number with dual head graphics cards.

 

For the 6 user system you'd need to buy a second Business OEM and second Enterperise Edition license anyway. Thus covering you for up to 8 machines.

 

If you are right then a 5 user, and possibly 6 user, machine would be quite expensive and not very cost effective.

 

Maybe a 1:4 ratio is ideal?

[dhicks]

If you are right then a 5 user, and possibly 6 user, machine would be quite expensive

 

For a 5-workstation machine say £200 for Windows licenses, £500 for the PC, £100 for 3 dual-head graphics cards, £50X5=£250 for monitors plus cost of Miniframe (er, £100?) = £1150 - say £1,200, divided by 5 = £250-odd per workstation, all-in, which is still pretty good value.

 

--

David Hicks

[Bluetooth]

Hi Guys.

 

Yes MS have come back to me today. I spoke with Alfie again in Microsofts UK Licensing team, however everything that he said is unofficial.

 

Basically what was said that it had gone away to "RMT"(Who?) for a decision regarding miniframe, they had come back with an incorect response that it should have server licences and cals etc, they sent back the right info stating that it was not a server OS and such and thus they needed to re evluate, the licensing team are still waiting for an OFFICIAL response from them, however the UK licensing team got together and are advising the following:

 

For however many systems etc you are using through miniframe you should have 1x CoA. So 1 miniframe with 6 useable systems means you have to have 6 CoAs. This is not an official response and cannot be quoted as such but this is what the UK licensing team are currently adivising that everyone does.

 

I asked for an ETA from RMT however Alfie said that he will be contacting them to push them along or receive the answer tuesday and he will contact me either tuesday or deffinitely on the wednesday next week.

 

Thats all i have guys, please dont quote anything as i have mentioned several times, its all unofficial at the moment but it is sound advice.

 

B

[verygreenpc]

Hi there,

 

That's kind of what we expected as it's the same answer we've been getting. For some reason there is never an official response, so we maintain the 1 copy of XP.

 

SoftXpand 3 is in the office being tested to billy O right now and it looks like we'll release before Windows 7 which is a shame...... or is it? It may give them the chance to complete their EULA.?

 

We've just announced a partnership with NetOp. Do any of you guys use that? It's a bit of a coup as some of our competitors wanted it but we got chosen which keeps the momentum. Items

 

Cheers,

Col

[verygreenpc]

Anyone worked out what RMT is yet?

[dhicks]

they had come back with an incorect response that it should have server licences and cals etc, they sent back the right info stating that it was not a server OS and such and thus they needed to re evluate

 

But if Miniframe could be got to work with Server 2003 / 2008 then you could simply buy the appropriate number of device CALs and be done with it?

 

--

David Hicks

[verygreenpc]

Ayup Dave, SoftXpand currently supports Windows Server 2003 and SoftXpand 3 will support Windows 7 and Windows 2008. You're bang on the money about it clarifying the liecnsing, I cannot argue with that, whereas the Windows XP licensing is open to debate.

[verygreenpc]

Dave Hicks! Once again the voice of reason! SoftXpand currently supports Server 2003, but only SoftXpand 3 which is 64 bit compatible will run ON Server 2008. SoftXpand 3 will be released in the next 2 weeks. But it is a desktop OS application by rights.

[DMcCoy]

But if Miniframe could be got to work with Server 2003 / 2008 then you could simply buy the appropriate number of device CALs and be done with it?

 

--

David Hicks

 

Thinking about it I do see the potential issues.

 

A CAL gets you access to a defined set of resources on windows server, and one of the things you don't get is a desktop session, unless you license terminal server. I don't think server on it's own really covers it.

[tmcd35]

And this, for me, is the key difference between nComputing and SoftXpand.

 

SoftXpand - next release, within 2 weeks, is 64bit Win7/2008 compatible

nComputing - will work with 2003/XP SP3 if you pray to the right gods other whys stick with XP SP2 and remove updates KB968537, KB956572 and KB954211.

[verygreenpc]

DMcCoy this is actually what my techies told me too. I can't say that it's been pulled to bits on server 2003 but a concern was that you'd only need a 2 user SoftXpand license and then opening up terminal server with RDP would provide as many desktop sessions as you wanted (we know because a little school in Derbyshireland did it with their Asus eeePCs)! They then went on to mention that license wise it's still not black or white but that if you wanted the full desktop functionality you'd have to kind of contravene the licensing and you'd need a fat client still to cope with the multimedia. Terry you know the overlords from NC are on this board right!? Love it, comment of the day! It certainly took me away from the "why won't it work on RM CC3?" which is all I've heard all day. Is it true that when you take RM you transcend and become RM?