[THIN] Re: OT now how much will it cost
- From: "Braebaum, Neil" <Neil.Braebaum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2004 09:40:31 +0100
FWIW, Tim, I thought you made a rational argument for the HT enabled
per-processor licensing model.
To my mind, it's better than the conglomerates doing it simply because
they can ;-)
Neil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Timothy Mangan
> Sent: 22 April 2004 01:01
> To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [THIN] Re: OT now how much will it cost
>
>
> Pricing that counts Hyperthreaded processors as two
> processors on Windows Server 2003 cannot be a glitch!
> Someone has to add code to make that happen. Last year, when
> I wrote the HyperThreading white paper I predicted that we
> would see someone come out with a pricing model that charged
> extra for HT enabled processors on 2003.
>
> Windows 2000 is a different story. The standard, "correctly
> written" code did not envision HyperThreading, and the 2000
> OS provided no method for an application to determine if the
> 4 processors it reported were 4 physical processors or 2 with
> HT. So licensing code charged for each logical processor.
> Fortunately, I suppose, HT really stinks on the 2K OS so it
> wasn't much of a problem (It is a kernel issue dealing with
> an idle logical processor messing up it's pair. Fixed nicely
> on XP and 2003, but should be HT disabled on 2000).
>
> (Aside: Before I get shot as a vendor for the next paragraph,
> I will note that on my server products, while they go to the
> trouble to report the number of real and logical [HT]
> processors, we have a simple per server pricing model. It's
> an add-on market, and while your customers end up saving
> money with these add-ons - they have a pain point at which it
> is just too much. Sure, the customer dropping this on 8-ways
> gets a heck of a bargain from us, but they tend to have more
> 8-way servers than do the majority of dual processor
> customers, so we make out OK anyway.)
>
> In my opinion, pricing on a logical processor basis can be
> fair. It is reasonable to charge more when the customer gets
> more value. There are a ton of pricing models out there -
> per server, per logical or real CPU, per user, and concurrent
> user (and even more models in the Software-as-a-service
> world). This is just another. If Microsoft had decided that
> "per-logical processor pricing" was the correct model in
> their mind, everyone would have followed suit.
>
> In the end you evaluate the pricing against the value the
> product provides, and almost always against other vendors,
> and decide if it is worth it.
***********************************************
This e-mail and its attachments are confidential
and are intended for the above named recipient
only. If this has come to you in error, please
notify the sender immediately and delete this
e-mail from your system.
You must take no action based on this, nor must
you copy or disclose it or any part of its contents
to any person or organisation.
Statements and opinions contained in this email may
not necessarily represent those of Littlewoods.
Please note that e-mail communications may be monitored.
The registered office of Littlewoods Limited and its
subsidiaries is 100 Old Hall Street, Liverpool, L70 1AB.
Registered number of Littlewoods Limited is 262152.
************************************************
********************************************************
This week's sponsor - Neoware Thin Clients
Neoware makes computing open, secure, reliable,
affordable, manageable and obsolete-free.
Starting at $199!
http://www.neoware.com
**********************************************************
Useful Thin Client Computing Links are available at:
http://thin.net/links.cfm
***********************************************************
For Archives, to Unsubscribe, Subscribe or
set Digest or Vacation mode use the below link:
http://thin.net/citrixlist.cfm
Other related posts:
