Everything That There Is To Know About VDI Licensing with Windows
-
Is the VDA a yearly occurence (as in pay per year) or it's a one time deal?
-
@FATeknollogee said:
@scottalanmiller said:
In the SMB, it's actually pretty practical for VDI to mean ten Windows 10 VMs running on a single server. They are all independent, do their own thing, and ten users each get one of them assigned to them. Easy peasy. It's Windows 10 so RDP is included in the technology stack and VDI SA licensing is specifically the right to access those VMs in that way.
Nothing more needed. This is actually how most SMBs picture VDI working until people start implying more things to sell to them.
What enterprises do is they layer things like RDS, XenDesktop, View or whatever on top of the VDI to provide things like "auto-provisioning" of the VMs, shared gold source image to reduce storage needs, web based access gateways and similar. Things that spin VMs up and down as load is needed. Things that are amazing - but have essentially no value in the SMB world. At least not most of the time.
All of that is just overhead that you don't need to worry about.
In this scenario of "ten Windows 10 VMs running on a single server":
- The hypervisor is irrelevant. You could use XenServer/HyperV/KVM etc
- The 10x VMs need to be licensed via SA or 10x Win 10 Pro lic + 10x Win VDA lic
- You can then connect remotely to the VMs using plain, 'ol, free RDP
- No reason to get into RDS & all other BS except you want to pay MS extra $$
Am I understanding this correctly
All seems correct.
-
@FATeknollogee said:
Is the VDA a yearly occurence (as in pay per year) or it's a one time deal?
Annual. that's what makes it so brutal.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@FATeknollogee said:
Is the VDA a yearly occurence (as in pay per year) or it's a one time deal?
Annual. that's what makes it so brutal.
Wow, I thought it was a one-time deal.
SA spread over a 2 or 3 year period is def a "better" deal?
-
but you have to renew SA whenever it expires as well.
VDI is a subscription no matter what.
-
@FATeknollogee said:
SA spread over a 2 or 3 year period is def a "better" deal?
On average, yes, But they are not dramatically different like they used to be.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@FATeknollogee said:
SA spread over a 2 or 3 year period is def a "better" deal?
On average, yes, But they are not dramatically different like they used to be.
What a racket MS has going!!
-
@FATeknollogee said:
What a racket MS has going!!
Only sort of. You are always free to use RDS for remote Windows usage. Or to use Linux desktops VDI or terminal servers. You are never trapped with MS. So no matter what they charge, it's not really unfair as there is no lock in. Expensive, yes but their customers choose them because they think that it is a good investment.
-
Windows VECD was the first round of client OS licensing to reflect VDI requirements for Windows, which launched with Windows Vista. Windows VDA replaced Windows VECD and became a Windows SA benefit with Windows 7.
This is the only clear bit of information that he provided.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@FATeknollogee said:
What a racket MS has going!!
Only sort of. You are always free to use RDS for remote Windows usage. Or to use Linux desktops VDI or terminal servers. You are never trapped with MS. So no matter what they charge, it's not really unfair as there is no lock in. Expensive, yes but their customers choose them because they think that it is a good investment.
I don't agree with that statement at all - at least not in the SMB - Their customers choose them because they don't know any better or because they feel like they have lock-in or they are afraid of something new/different.
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't agree with that statement at all - at least not in the SMB - Their customers choose them because they don't know any better or because they feel like they have lock-in or they are afraid of something new/different.
That sounds like you totally agreed with my statement
They are free to choose something else and chose not to. There is zero pressure to use MS, they are just so lazy that they do zero research or scare themselves (probably because they did zero research) and make up reasons that they feel that they should be on Windows. That's what "free to choose" means. Sure, there is a reason why people choose MS, but it is because they feel that there is value. Maybe the value is in being lazy and doing zero work to figure out what makes sense for them. Maybe the value is as a placebo. In any case, businesses make decisions based on perceived value (anything else would be fiducially irresponsible.) -
Which part did you disagree with... that companies are free to choose or that they feel that they are making a good business decision?
If the first, who do you feel is extorting them and why do you feel legal action has not been taken?
If the second, do you feel that there is a conspiracy and tens of thousands of companies are knowingly involved in sabotage or theft? What else would intentional financial mismanagement mean?
-
I disagree that they pick it because they think it's a good investment. They probably don't even consider that aspect of it.
-
@Dashrender said:
I disagree that they pick it because they think it's a good investment. They probably don't even consider that aspect of it.
So as a business, that's their only job. Literally, their singular job. If you feel that they are not doing it, you feel that this is intentionally not doing their jobs (stealing from the business?)
-
you have such a weird way of looking at things sometimes. -
maybe the value is in being lazy
lol
To me - statements like that don't really even make sense - I can't imagine that their is conscious though where they think to themselves - Hey there's value in my being lazy - therefore MS is a good investment. -
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I disagree that they pick it because they think it's a good investment. They probably don't even consider that aspect of it.
So as a business, that's their only job. Literally, their singular job. If you feel that they are not doing it, you feel that this is intentionally not doing their jobs (stealing from the business?)
Of course!
-
@Dashrender said:
you have such a weird way of looking at things sometimes. -
maybe the value is in being lazy
lol
To me - statements like that don't really even make sense - I can't imagine that their is conscious though where they think to themselves - Hey there's value in my being lazy - therefore MS is a good investment.To me, it's the only thing your statement could mean. You just said that a business decision maker decided to make a massive financial investment in the core infrastructure of the business that he represents and you feel that he may have completely avoided doing his one job in making that decision and just hand the company's money over to one big company.
How is "Hey, there is very to me in being lazy [read: not doing my only job] therefore I'll just hand the company's money over" not exactly what I described?
-
@Dashrender said:
So as a business, that's their only job. Literally, their singular job. If you feel that they are not doing it, you feel that this is intentionally not doing their jobs (stealing from the business?)
Of course!
This I understand, if the belief that a massive percentage of people hired to be business financial decisions makers use that opportunity to steal from the company (by being paid for a job that they are not doing at all) then I can understand that. It seems like such an easy task, but I guess if people think that they can get away with it, they'll steal anything.
I learned this while working at a chemical plant. So many people were open, proud of it media pirates. I realized then that every single one of them would steal my car and my television if they truly thought that they could get away with it. None of them didn't steal because it was wrong, they all only didn't steal because they were fearful.
-
What is mind blowing is not that people steal. Most people, I think, would commit all kinds of terrible acts if they truly believed that they were completely safe in doing so. That part I get. It is that so many people will brag about it, find that it is socially acceptable and, the big one, the people who manage them all the way up to the owners and investors, simply don't care that their money is being funnelled out to someone for no reason and that the person that they paid to protect them from that is the one making it happen. They didn't just pay someone and have them not do their job, they did the very thing that they, we suppose, were hired to protect them from!
-
It's a bit like continuing to pay the king's body guard not after the guard failed to protect the king, but are the ones who actually killed him!
