Should I move to Windows 10 now, or wait?
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
Again no idea what I'm talking about but could you P2V the windows 7 and then install 10 and use 7 in VB? For only 3-4 machines that shouldn't cost too much.
You would think they would have to allow for some other OS to run the virtual instance or else it wouldn't even make sense.
-
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
It's absolutely gone, since it fell out of support.
Eh? What does Windows 7's rights to use XP Mode have to do with XP being out of support?
Well Windows 7 Pro offered it with a lot of XP support left and Hyper-V allowing workstations to build VMs was still out on the horizon, rather than just mount servers with Hyper-V installed. But with 8 releasing in 2012 Microsoft knew that XP's support was coming to an end in only 2 years. They wanted to start virtualizing everything in a completely different way (Hyper-V allowing locally built VMs on workstations). So I'm sure they figured instead of have that mode available, XP machines could be stood up within Hyper-V (not recommended to use XP after support, but still an option). Not saying I agree with the whole bit if that is true, but it's just a guess.
Edit: So maybe what I should have said was it's gone because Hyper-V took a different turn for workstations, rather than saying XP fell out of support.
But the point of XP Mode was that you did not need a license for it. That is gone with Hyper-V. I cannot enable Hyper-V on my Windows 10 Pro OEM license and then simply have access to a licensed Windows 7 VM.
-
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
Again no idea what I'm talking about but could you P2V the windows 7 and then install 10 and use 7 in VB? For only 3-4 machines that shouldn't cost too much.
You would think they would have to allow for some other OS to run the virtual instance or else it wouldn't even make sense.
This would would if only 3-5 people actually used the old software - but 60+ people use the software. So either I have to give everyone a VM locally (second windows license needed), or VDI (license based on device, typically), or RDS (based on devices access the RDS) OR
I setup 3-5 stationary computers, shared by all 60 staff, who's sole purpose is accessing the old app.
Then this goes back to an earlier post - if I'm having shared computers - why bother with the added expense of local VM or VDI or RDS? Instead, just for these 3-5 computer, I can leave them on Windows 8.1 and they will work with the old app.Make sense?
-
@JaredBusch said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
@BBigford said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
It's absolutely gone, since it fell out of support.
Eh? What does Windows 7's rights to use XP Mode have to do with XP being out of support?
Well Windows 7 Pro offered it with a lot of XP support left and Hyper-V allowing workstations to build VMs was still out on the horizon, rather than just mount servers with Hyper-V installed. But with 8 releasing in 2012 Microsoft knew that XP's support was coming to an end in only 2 years. They wanted to start virtualizing everything in a completely different way (Hyper-V allowing locally built VMs on workstations). So I'm sure they figured instead of have that mode available, XP machines could be stood up within Hyper-V (not recommended to use XP after support, but still an option). Not saying I agree with the whole bit if that is true, but it's just a guess.
Edit: So maybe what I should have said was it's gone because Hyper-V took a different turn for workstations, rather than saying XP fell out of support.
But the point of XP Mode was that you did not need a license for it. That is gone with Hyper-V. I cannot enable Hyper-V on my Windows 10 Pro OEM license and then simply have access to a licensed Windows 7 VM.
The Hyper-V thing is a red herring in this case, as Scott would say. Sure this license change happened at the same time that MS changes from MS Virtual Server to Hyper-V, but I seriously doubt that is why MS changed the licensing rules.
It's far more likely that MS wanted to put XP out of the market, start shoving people away from using it. After 3 what I'll call bonus years, the industry as a whole should have been ready to move away from the need to use XP. Windows 7 was highly successful, users loved it. With the release of Windows 8, it had been 6 years since MS had a new model for programming (Vista). It was definitely time to get off the old and move to the new.
-
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
Again no idea what I'm talking about but could you P2V the windows 7 and then install 10 and use 7 in VB? For only 3-4 machines that shouldn't cost too much.
You would think they would have to allow for some other OS to run the virtual instance or else it wouldn't even make sense.
This would would if only 3-5 people actually used the old software - but 60+ people use the software. So either I have to give everyone a VM locally (second windows license needed), or VDI (license based on device, typically), or RDS (based on devices access the RDS) OR
I setup 3-5 stationary computers, shared by all 60 staff, who's sole purpose is accessing the old app.
Then this goes back to an earlier post - if I'm having shared computers - why bother with the added expense of local VM or VDI or RDS? Instead, just for these 3-5 computer, I can leave them on Windows 8.1 and they will work with the old app.Make sense?
Ah yes ok, I see what you're saying. I guess the only advantage I see off the top of my head is that since you have to "maintain" this until 2022, that might be easier on a VM vs physical but that's all up to you.
-
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
@Dashrender said:
@johnhooks said:
Here's what I read. This is for a 7 Pro OEM
d. Use with Virtualization Technologies. Instead of using the software directly on the licensed
computer, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated)
hardware system on the licensed computer.This means on the desktop in question, not on a server.
Ya so in VB on that machine.
Right, but I don't think it means you can have it installed twice (once directly on the hardware and a second time in the VM on that hardware). I believe (and willing to be proven wrong) that it means that you can run it one or the other.
The major exception to this was XP mode. Windows 7 Pro specifically allowed a user to run a XP VM inside a Windows 7 Pro install.
I'm 99.9% sure that's gone from anything Windows 8 and newer.
Therefore, once you upgrade the license to Windows 7, you wouldn't even be allowed to use the XP mode anymore, even if you upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10, legally.
Again no idea what I'm talking about but could you P2V the windows 7 and then install 10 and use 7 in VB? For only 3-4 machines that shouldn't cost too much.
You would think they would have to allow for some other OS to run the virtual instance or else it wouldn't even make sense.
This would would if only 3-5 people actually used the old software - but 60+ people use the software. So either I have to give everyone a VM locally (second windows license needed), or VDI (license based on device, typically), or RDS (based on devices access the RDS) OR
I setup 3-5 stationary computers, shared by all 60 staff, who's sole purpose is accessing the old app.
Then this goes back to an earlier post - if I'm having shared computers - why bother with the added expense of local VM or VDI or RDS? Instead, just for these 3-5 computer, I can leave them on Windows 8.1 and they will work with the old app.Make sense?
Ah yes ok, I see what you're saying. I guess the only advantage I see off the top of my head is that since you have to "maintain" this until 2022, that might be easier on a VM vs physical but that's all up to you.
The part I have to maintain in the server closet is already in the process of becoming a VM. I forsee the possibility one day where the VM of the server and a VM of a client might all run on a single box for rare lookups. And that box would be a server in my DC. So at that point, a single or two people would be assigned, and VDI would probably make sense.
-
@Dashrender said:
- license enough for all current users of the old system to use VDI/RDS from their machines - that's about 60
Huh? RDS is per concurrent users. not per "user"
Also it does not have to be yearly either.
-
@Jason said:
Huh? RDS is per concurrent users. not per "user"
Per user. Specifically not by concurrent as each user can use as much currency as needed.
-
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
- license enough for all current users of the old system to use VDI/RDS from their machines - that's about 60
Huh? RDS is per concurrent users. not per "user"
Also it does not have to be yearly either.
As Scott mentioned, it's definitely per user, not concurrent users.
that said, the yearly bit might be wrong - I read a Google post indicating that it was a yearly renewal and assumed it was just an updated requirement - thinking they might have made it match the VDI yearly renewals situation.
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
- license enough for all current users of the old system to use VDI/RDS from their machines - that's about 60
Huh? RDS is per concurrent users. not per "user"
Also it does not have to be yearly either.
As Scott mentioned, it's definitely per user, not concurrent users.
that said, the yearly bit might be wrong - I read a Google post indicating that it was a yearly renewal and assumed it was just an updated requirement - thinking they might have made it match the VDI yearly renewals situation.
I haven't seen a yearly requirement unless you purchase SA with the license (although I may be remembering that wrong).
-
@Dashrender said:
@Jason said:
@Dashrender said:
- license enough for all current users of the old system to use VDI/RDS from their machines - that's about 60
Huh? RDS is per concurrent users. not per "user"
Also it does not have to be yearly either.
As Scott mentioned, it's definitely per user, not concurrent users.
that said, the yearly bit might be wrong - I read a Google post indicating that it was a yearly renewal and assumed it was just an updated requirement - thinking they might have made it match the VDI yearly renewals situation.
Microsoft added clarification on this just in case the Technet article wasn't clear enough:
Quote:
If you choose Per User RDS CALs, the licenses are for specific users. If you choose Per Device RDS CALs, the licenses are for specific devices.**
NOTE: RDS Licensing is not concurrent. What this means is that if you purchase 15 RDS CALs they are for 15 specific users, not "any" 15 users at a given moment in time, which is how it would be under a concurrent scheme. For tracking purposes, a Per User CAL is issued to a user for 60 days.*
-
Nice find - love the backup for the standard documentation linked above.
-
Yeah, the standard docs said it was "by user" but were not super explicit. I can see where someone would make the ephemeral argument that it is not a "named user" but is a "user in the moment." But it is very clearly "named users", the CALs are assigned to an account. And each account gets unlimited concurrent connections. So in some ways it is more limiting, but overall it is far more freeing as you can have ten users but thousands of concurrents at any given time.
