Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview
-
@momurda Every new release goes up in price a little. Core pricing is not related to cost, though. Core based pricing could just as easily be cheaper.
-
@bbigford said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
Pretty excited to see this. I hope licensing flops back to not focusing on core density.
What do you dislike about core density pricing? It neither adds complexity nor cost, what are the negatives?
-
Let's hope you all have SA with your WS2016 licensing!
-
@tim_g said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
Let's hope you all have SA with your WS2016 licensing!
Or, you know, Linux
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
@tim_g said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
Let's hope you all have SA with your WS2016 licensing!
Or, you know, Linux
:winking_face:
-
@tim_g SA for the OS license, but the CALs seem to be where they are going to increase. Sure, you can get SA for CALs too...
-
@wrx7m said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
@tim_g SA for the OS license, but the CALs seem to be where they are going to increase. Sure, you can get SA for CALs too...
Getting SA is just part and parcel of using Windows Servers. Sure, you can skip SA, but it's risky and rarely makes sense. You essentially commit to SA being the logical way to do things when you choose Windows. It's part of the initial price decision and risk assessment.
-
@mlnews cockpit for windows! =P
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
@bbigford said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
Pretty excited to see this. I hope licensing flops back to not focusing on core density.
What do you dislike about core density pricing? It neither adds complexity nor cost, what are the negatives?
2 licenses per core. 6 core CPU is different than 2x 12 core CPUs. We don't really see a licensing hike from the previous Standard at $700 for 2x VMs. But up in quad proc hosts with many cores we do.
-
@bbigford said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
What do you dislike about core density pricing? It neither adds complexity nor cost, what are the negatives?
2 licenses per core. 6 core CPU is different than 2x 12 core CPUs. We don't really see a licensing hike from the previous Standard at $700 for 2x VMs. But up in quad proc hosts with many cores we do.
All that has happened is that we count cores instead of CPUs. CPUs are way more powerful than they were in the old days. So the price hasn't gone up. And the effort to count hasn't gone up. Price is less, actually, when you account for inflation. And the need and style of counting is identical. Core licensing has zero negative issues, and zero actual changes from the previous model.
For example, quad proc hosts always needed twice as many licenses. So that is exactly the same as before.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
For example, quad proc hosts always needed twice as many licenses. So that is exactly the same as before.
Right.
Also, it's cheaper now than it used to be because:
- Back in the day you had to run 50 physical servers... that's 50 Windows Server licenses.
- Today, you can consolidate them ALL into a single server, or a few.
- That is still cheaper if you go beyond the default amount of cores (16) on a physical server with no more than 2 processors, than it was when you needed 50 physical servers.
So now, instead of paying double the licensing costs for every new physical server... you're paying small incremental increases in cost per "core" past the "default amount" required, if you know what I mean... because processors are way more capable now, and Microsoft needs to balance costs to us as well as profit for them. This is the very best way to do it.
-
@tim_g said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
For example, quad proc hosts always needed twice as many licenses. So that is exactly the same as before.
Right.
Also, it's cheaper now than it used to be because:
- Back in the day you had to run 50 physical servers... that's 50 Windows Server licenses.
- Today, you can consolidate them ALL into a single server, or a few.
- That is still cheaper if you go beyond the default amount of cores (16) on a physical server with no more than 2 processors, than it was when you needed 50 physical servers.
So now, instead of paying double the licensing costs for every new physical server... you're paying small incremental increases in cost per "core" past the "default amount" required, if you know what I mean... because processors are way more capable now, and Microsoft needs to balance costs to us as well as profit for them. This is the very best way to do it.
That's comparing virtual to physical, you can still license physical that way today.
He's talking, I think, about licensing by CPU count rather than by Core count - which have stayed the same. You license the same, you count the same, you just count something that matters instead of something that doesn't. With the advancements in cores since 2014, you are still getting more power for the same or less money per VM instance than you did in 2014, so the "complexity" has remained completely identical; and the cost has decreased just slightly.
-
When will we see the availability of Hyper-V Server 2019?
-
@black3dynamite said in Windows Server 2019 Goes Into Preview:
When will we see the availability of Hyper-V Server 2019?
Preview is already out, I believe.
