[THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
- From: "Andrew Wood" <andrew.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:21:16 +0100
I think it's the other way round to be honest - IE6 was poor from a security
perspective. Still, the "legacy modes" were nonsense.
However, IE8 introduced a whole raft of stuff that just plain broke other
things. Its interesting to note that the guys behind Browsium worked on IE8
- so it was do-able because they did it.
IE9 is better mind. Half tempted to say "try again with 9"
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Joe Shonk
Sent: 12 April 2011 19:20
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
Well, whose fault is it for not making IE7 and IE8 backwards compatible?
Who fault is it for not update their freaking application code.
Joe
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Russell Robertson
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 10:17 AM
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
MS argued a long time ago that IE was part of the OS. If they come back now
and say actually we can separate it and virtualise it (already been done)
then the EU could come back to them. That was my thought, but also agree
that MS would want everyone to upgrade. However it backfires when a Win 7
upgrade stalls because of a requirement for IE6. And Med-V isn't the
solution, even if that's what MS want you to use.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: 12 April 2011 17:18
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
Personally, I think it's got nothing to do with the EU and everything to do
with you not upgrading to Windows 7.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Russell Robertson
Sent: 12 April 2011 16:40
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
The cost for UniBrows isn't hugely appealing (I'm sure I read somewhere it
was $5000 + $5 per user per year) but haven't yet tried it.
MS should simply release the functionality to deliver IE 6 via App-V. I'm
sure they would be in trouble with the EU if they did that though.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: 12 April 2011 16:20
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
XP Mode does work, but to work reliably (imo) needs the local device to have
more RAM.
If you're keeping XA/W2k3/XP just for IE6 compatibility take a look at
Unibrows from Browsium which works very well in a desktop environment in
fact the only issue I have with it is .. er.. licensing :?
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Russell Robertson
Sent: 12 April 2011 13:23
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
Hi Greg
We've actually gone through a trial with XP Mode and decided that it was
better to use a legacy XA/Server 2003 farm for stuff that needs IE6.
You got XP mode working well? Using MED-V?
Cheers
Russell
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Greg Reese
Sent: 12 April 2011 13:14
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
This might be a good time to show your customer how XP mode works in windows
7 for apps that have compatibility issues.
Greg
On Apr 12, 2011, at 5:19 AM, Russell Robertson <russell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi Andrew
Thanks for this, looks like you've answered my question thoroughly but not
with the answer I wanted to hear J.
Cheers
Russell
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: 12 April 2011 10:43
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
VDA Licenses are for devices, not for OSes. Your VDA license lets you run
either Win7, Vista or XP in the HvD but it's a Windows OS running in a VM;
it needs to be licensed. You say "lets ignore the FPP" - note here that
Volume licenses are treated in the same manner as FPP - so for VL, the FPP
rules (which I mentioned earlier) apply.
If you want to use a device that doesn't have a windows license associated
with it (like a thin client), or a non-qualifying license (like a device
running Windows XP embedded) . you need a VDA. You can't "assign a VL Win7"
license a thin client/XPe device: that device doesn't qualify.
If you want to use a device that does have a windows license & has an
associated VL upgrade, but doesn't have SA - you may need to buy a VDA <
this option is a false economy imo.
If you've 50 Thin Clients and you want to use them to host a HVD session
running XP (or Vista, or Win7) - 50 VDA licenses.
If you've 50 PCs with an OEM license assigned to them and you've got:
. VL upgrade for those PCs (which you have), AND
. you've not got SA for them (which you don't) AND
. you want to use them to access a HvD running a Windows OS
(win7,vista, or xp) (which you do) AND
. You want more flexibility than the default FPP/VL rules allow when
running HvD (again, which you do I would expect) Then
you need to :
o buy a VDA license for each device or
o get SA for those devices < this is the recommended option, Why? Because
it's about the same price as VDA but comes with more "stuff" - and it's a
%age cost (@29% iirc) of your license. Depending on your volume agreement,
that could be less than $100/year for the VDA license.
In the first document I referenced (the MS licensing guide) there is an
example scenario given:
CORPORATE OWNED COMPUTERS
An organization has 100 devices that need access to the VDI environment.
However, only 80 users and only 50 VMs are used at any one
time. Since 100 different devices will be accessing the VDI environment the
following would be required:
. Devices are PCs covered with SA: No additional licensing
. Devices are thin clients not covered with SA: 100 Windows VDA
licenses
Sounds very similar to your scenario: I'd say all your devices count as
"thin clients" here.
My answer "you need a VDA license for your Thin Clients". For your desktops
- sounds like you need at least to move them to SA. This is would be the
requirement regardless of the HvD's OS - be it XP or Win7 - because MS
desktop licenses are assigned to a device.
Some additional info:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/volume-licensing-briefs.a
spx#tab=3
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/about-licensing/product-licensing.aspx#ta
b=2
Hope this clarifies.
As ever, if in doubt, consult a MS Licensing specialist. Prepare to be even
more confused L
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Russell Robertson
Sent: 12 April 2011 09:24
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
Hi Andrew
Thanks for the reply.
This just shows the mess that MS licensing is in.
Let's ignore the FPP as that doesn't count and I'm expecting to be able to
assign a Win 7 license from Select to the thin clients. The client have
already purchased Windows 7 via Select so it's a sunk cost.
Key query here is; "do I need a VDA license for XP Pro"? I'm hoping not and
that it's only a requirement for Windows 7.
Cheers
Russell
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Andrew Wood
Sent: 11 April 2011 23:33
To: thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [THIN] Re: VDA License required for XP Pro
Russell,
Windows 7 Professional, Windows Vista Business or windows XP Professional
obtained through a Volume License upgrade, when purchased on top of a
qualifying operating system license (i.e. for their existing PCs) has all
the limitations of a full packaged product (FPP) license.
FPP can be used for VDI if:
1) The physical server on which the virtual desktop is installed is
assigned to 1 user. This is obviously nuts, but it is legal.
2) You assign a FPP to a device, and you use that device to access to
the VM *under the condition that* you don't move that VM around. It can only
be present on 1 server. So - no vmotion/xenmotion or load balancing. So -
for every device that has an OEM windows license that you've "upgraded"
with your volume license that counts as 1 license to access a VM, but that
VM can only go on 1 server.
So - for your PCs, you could leave them as is with these caveats above -
point 2 is important. You might consider that OK; you might only have 1 main
server or accept that each user's VM will only be available from 1 server.
Each of the thin clients (as they don't have an OEM license assigned) needs
to have a VDA license. As does any corporate smartphone/tablet. Bear in mind
your VDA license is a cost per device, per year.
You may consider that pt 2) is a PITA - you can solve that by getting SA for
those VLs. With VDA & SA you get (drum roll Animal please.)
. Install Windows 7/Windows Vista/Windows XP virtual machines on any
combination of hardware and storage
. Unlimited movement between servers and storage
. Access corporate desktop images from non-corporate owned
Windows-based PCs (home use, but not those deluded Mac users. splitters)
. The primary user of a Windows VDA device has extended roaming
rights, which means that the Punter can access their VDI desktop from any
device outside of the corporate environment, such as a home PC or an
internet kiosk (even if they have a Mac)
. Eligibility for other Software Assurance products, such as MDOP
and Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs
. Single Windows VDA license allows concurrent access for up to 4
VMs
. Reassignment rights to another device after 90 days, or in the
case of end-point failure
. Dynamic desktop licensing enabled through KMS/MAK activation &
indeed, access to Enterprise versions of Windows.
. Unlimited backups of both running and stored VMs (woo)
. Includes Software Assurance (SA) benefits such as 24x7 call
support, training vouchers, trips to disney land*, rocket ships to mars*
etc.
Note the "outside of the corporate environment" - a roaming license lets
your punter use their VDA/SA license to access their desktop from their
tablet/smartphone *until they bring it into the office* - then it needs a
license. Again, nuts - but Be Aware.
Links?
Licensing Windows for Virtual Desktops Whitepaper:
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t
<http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%
2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdownload%2FC%2F6%2F7%2FC673E444-6DDD-40B8-B29F
-625354F2A8F7%2FLicensing_Windows_for_Virtual_Desktops_Whitepaper.pdf&ei=JH2
jTaD5BcOxhAez2dz1BA&usg=AFQjCNFVSHX_5GZICVF8-ceOdEdNasKWFg>
&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.microsoft.com%2Fdow
nload%2FC%2F6%2F7%2FC673E444-6DDD-40B8-B29F-625354F2A8F7%2FLicensing_Windows
_for_Virtual_Desktops_Whitepaper.pdf&ei=JH2jTaD5BcOxhAez2dz1BA&usg=AFQjCNFVS
HX_5GZICVF8-ceOdEdNasKWFg
Licensing VDI for Microsoft Desktops - is it rocket science?
http://www.virtualizationpractice.com/blog/?p=9389
Applications and OS Licensing: Remote Access and Roaming Use:
http://tonymackelworth.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/applications-and-os-licensin
g-remote-access-and-roaming-use/
hth
. * these items may not be true but could be added once MS run out
of ideas.
From: thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:thin-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Russell Robertson
Sent: 11 April 2011 20:20
To: 'thin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: [THIN] VDA License required for XP Pro
Hello
I have a client who is looking at rolling out XP via XD5. My query is, do
they need a VDA license for XP Pro? It would be delivered to both desktops
PCs and thin clients. The client has Windows 7 via Select Agreement. No SA.
They don't want to roll out Win 7 yet due to app compatibility so that's not
an option.
Anyone done this already? Pointers to MS documents would be great.
Thanks
Russell
Russell Robertson | Virtual Stream
Other related posts:
