MS Partners Bailing Over Delays In Releases

Frosty Piss writes "A new study says past delays in Microsoft's products are causing some businesses to think twice about renewing the long-term service agreements that include rights to upgrade to future versions of its programs. 26 percent of the 61 IT professionals surveyed by Forrester Research said they had decided not to renew their Microsoft Software Assurance agreements when they expire, opting instead to buy the software as needed." Microsoft says the study is not representative of what it's hearing from its customers.

I'm still waiting for vista

[bhmit1]

I'm not MS fan (I have linux running on everything where I have a choice), but because of customers that use various MS products, it seemed cheaper when starting my business to subscribe to their Action Pack Subscription (MAPS). They give you more than enough licenses for all the major products (office, server, workstation, visio, maps, etc) which is perfect for reading those files that customers send without forking over the big bucks up front. You have to pay over $300 yearly, which if they were releasing often, it would make sense.

But I'm about to approach the point where purchasing everything outright makes more sense, and they still haven't sent me anything more than a beta for Vista. So if my customers want me to support them, either I'm using a beta to do so, or I have to fork out the cash even though I'm subscribing to MAPS. This may be the last year I renew my subscription unless they have a lot of new software entering the pipe. The worst part is should I cancel, I'm guessing the MS police will be knocking to verify that I don't have anything unlicensed still in use, which I wouldn't, but my time does equal money.

Re:Let's define HOW it is "easier".

[Vancorps]

I'm not sure, is this a troll? If so, well done sir!

If not you clearly don't know how Microsoft licensing works. You don't keep or maintain proof you own anything. It's all registered through Elicensing on Microsoft's own site. If you buy from vendor A they put in the paperwork with Microsoft and send you a copy so that you can authenticate through the licensing site. From there you can download any licensed product and you have a full inventory of all licensing you have purchased all in one place, serialized, and even commented.

Also, if you're a VL purchaser then you aren't activating Windows anyway as VL Windows XP at least doesn't require activation. With Vista there are a whole myriad of other options available even if they are more of a pain than with XP but don't kid yourself, there are a lot of options.

As for compliance checking, that is easily accomplished with an on-sight database. Hell, make it a Debian box running mysql. A simple login script can query all the installed applications and write all the information into a central inventory. Alternatively you can use Microsoft products for compliance monitoring such as Operations Manager and Systems Management Server if you have the money for such products.

Naturally there are plenty of open source compliance systems out there as well that make it perfectly easy to make sure you're not only in compliance with Microsoft but also Adobe and any other big software maker out there.

I would be curious about the number of businesses the BSA has investigated that have an existing VL agreement with Microsoft. I don't think it's ever happened although I recognize that it could happen so I guess it doesn't make any difference.

At any rate, genuine media is only a problem with Microsoft's retail products. OEM and VL products have different keys are difficult and/or pointless to fake in the case of a VL product since you can download the media yourself from the Eopen site.

Re:Don't ever pay in advance

[Vancorps]

It sounds like you've never been involved with the purchase of software assurance. Few companies pay it all up front and actually minimize the cash layout by spreading the payments out over three years. So 180k in MS software will result in 36k the first year, 50k the second year, and the remainder in the third year. Of course it all depends on how your company arranges the terms ahead of time.

With that said you have a point about software assurance being a bad idea but the ability to upgrade and down grade on the fly as well as lifting the hardware restrictions does make things more interesting. Of course you plan on assurance depending on the cost. Normally assurance saves a company money if they are planning on upgrading within three years. If you don't upgrade sooner then it's pointless and you might as well just pay the upgrade pricing when its time. Of course if you're licensing Windows this allows you transfer OEM licensing and role them into VL so you buy new machines you can use your Windows licenses on the next batch of computers. Lots and lots of options, definitely more complicated than it needs to be in my opinion.

Re:Don't ever pay in advance

[LoadWB]

Unfortunately Microsoft is beginning to move a lot of licensing functionality into SA to make it almost a requirement. For instance, look up the licensing for Office 2007 in conjunction with a Terminal Server, or the use of Office 2003 licensing for Office 2007 on Terminal Server. And charity licensing now gives you home use rights for your licenses, if you purchase SA.

Software Assurance is bullshit, frankly. It just a way for Microsoft to squeeze extra money out of its customers with the promise of a "free" upgrade to the next version, IF the next version is released within the SA period. Think about all the poor schmucks who bought a three year SA with Office 2003 upon release (or was only two years available then?)

All the while, by the way, Microsoft is sticking it to OEMs with stupid requirements. For instance, system builders who sell Office 2007 are not allowed to distribute 2007 media: they are required to provide some sort of recovery system to the user. And OEM licensing is no longer adequate for most usage purposes (like the TS example above.)

And now that people aren't buying Vista and Office 2007 in the numbers Microsoft wanted, we will soon be required to buy nothing but! Once stock of Office 2003 runs out in the channels I will no longer be able to offer this to my customers who do not like Office 2007, as MS has discontinued Office 2003 in the OEM channels. Windows XP will be gone sometime around January, 2008.

How many people would have been pissed if Windows 2000 and Office XP suffered the same fate? So is this Microsoft's way of not committing the same mistake before of supporting older generation software, or is this just a way of cramming shit down our throats? IMHO, so long as a product is still in mainstream support, I should be able to obtain said product. IIRC, Windows XP Pro SP2 is EOL in 2010.

And what about Office 2003 SP3 which has been announced and is supposedly in testing? This will contain back-ported features from Office 2007. Will it bring "ribbons" which 90% of my surveyed users hate (ah! statistics!) and make it so there is no option for "classic" menu styles?

I will not be moving to Vista any time soon. I've used the betas and release candidates, and I am not impressed. There are some neat things under the hood, but the gains balance the loses in my experience. And I just principally abhor kuldgy, klunky DRM and other restrictions. I received Vista Business in my Action Pack, and it has gone and will continue to go unused.

I was excited about Windows XP because it represented a MASSIVE shift in technology, usability, and stability over Windows 2000. (And many people will debate this, but I refuse to argue against my experience.) I was excited about Server 2003 for a lot of the same reasons. It really seemed like Microsoft was listening to us. I went to the training and free seminars and demonstrations. But now it seems as though Microsoft took a little exception to being told by its customers what they want, and now instead tell the customers what they can have, period.

And this is a take-it, no leave-it, situation. Many of us rely upon software which requires Windows to run, and at the same time have no IT budget to investigate alternative methods. In the end, we will still need Windows somewhere.

I grow weary of Microsoft's crap. Every time I turn around I feel like I am its whore for pushing its product. To be fair, Windows XP and Server 2003 have been great products for me to support. But licensing and upgrades by attrition is just too much anymore.

I am working to move out of this part of the industry soon. I would rather do server and network administration, and disaster recovery and risk assessment, anyway. This is far less complicated and easier to stomach than Microsoft software licensing and force-fed controls.

Keep on trucking, Microsoft. Like Rome, you shall fall; you will learn the lesson of IBM. You can only screw your customers for so long before they revolt. O

Re:Don't ever pay in advance-Fixing OSS.

[mabhatter654]

no, it's exactly the same. Only Microsoft had little motivation to produce the upgrades because you were locked into a long term contract and they weren't required by the contract to produce ANYTHING. Also, SA only included a little support. Good luck calling to request a bug fix just for you. They'll take your $100,000+ but still treat you like a chump.
OSS vendors include support with maintenance for the full term. Often you get access to actual programmers and not sales people. I've worked with vendors that have put out a product patch just for the bug we found on a support call.. it's pretty cool! Even with mighty IBM, I've gotten actual programmers involved in bug issues because I had all my patches applied and troubleshooting steps followed. In that respect Microsoft isn't a "good" supplier unless you spend millions with them. When you deal with good companies, you see how poor Microsoft really is at their core business of making software. They're a "one trick pony" that merely has a lot of money in the bank.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion