Microsoft forcing corporate users to Upgrade?
As of Friday the company I work for asked me to look into some of the costs of upgrading our users of Visual Studio 6.0 to Visual Studio .NET.
When I asked Why, the rep from our Purchasing department told me that Microsoft is demanding that our company upgrade before 7/31/2002 or risk penalties for using "un-licensed" software.
Although I had heard about Microsoft's deadlines regarding upgrading some of their products for corporate users, I was shocked at how Draconian the measures they are taking were.
It seems that in the case of the Visual Development tools, if a company is using Visual Studio 6.0 (and this includes all varients of the package, Professional, Enterprise, etc) and does not upgrade to the .NET branded version Microsoft will charge full-price for the upgrades (companies get special pricing before 7/31/2002) and will charge additional fees for failing to be in licensing compliance every month as long as the corporation continues to use the older product.
To add insult to injury, the company I work for was not notified of some of these conditions until THIS WEEK.
I was shown the pricing list, and due to some issues at my workplace I cannot share them here, but I can say the pricing is extremely high.
The effect on my company is the costs imposed by Microsoft are tearing into IT budgets that could potientially cost people thier jobs since my company has not been doing well for the last several quarters.
The silver lining in this story however is that my company has a very vocal Open Source community that has been begging our IT department to begin phasing Microsoft products from our server and development areas, with Microsoft pulling this nonsense with its customers clearly they are making it easier for corporations to look at alternative products.
For now, at least in this case, Microsoft's strong arm tactics will probably cost them a customer.
I have been told by others that Microsoft is going to be pulling a similar stunt with users of Windows 2000 in the next six months again, telling their customers that if they do not upgrade to Windows XP they will be faced with penalties for maintaining an older version of the Windows platform.
For those of you working in IT, have you heard about this licensing scheme, or did the company I work for negotiate a poor deal?
When I asked Why, the rep from our Purchasing department told me that Microsoft is demanding that our company upgrade before 7/31/2002 or risk penalties for using "un-licensed" software.
Although I had heard about Microsoft's deadlines regarding upgrading some of their products for corporate users, I was shocked at how Draconian the measures they are taking were.
It seems that in the case of the Visual Development tools, if a company is using Visual Studio 6.0 (and this includes all varients of the package, Professional, Enterprise, etc) and does not upgrade to the .NET branded version Microsoft will charge full-price for the upgrades (companies get special pricing before 7/31/2002) and will charge additional fees for failing to be in licensing compliance every month as long as the corporation continues to use the older product.
To add insult to injury, the company I work for was not notified of some of these conditions until THIS WEEK.
I was shown the pricing list, and due to some issues at my workplace I cannot share them here, but I can say the pricing is extremely high.
The effect on my company is the costs imposed by Microsoft are tearing into IT budgets that could potientially cost people thier jobs since my company has not been doing well for the last several quarters.
The silver lining in this story however is that my company has a very vocal Open Source community that has been begging our IT department to begin phasing Microsoft products from our server and development areas, with Microsoft pulling this nonsense with its customers clearly they are making it easier for corporations to look at alternative products.
For now, at least in this case, Microsoft's strong arm tactics will probably cost them a customer.
I have been told by others that Microsoft is going to be pulling a similar stunt with users of Windows 2000 in the next six months again, telling their customers that if they do not upgrade to Windows XP they will be faced with penalties for maintaining an older version of the Windows platform.
For those of you working in IT, have you heard about this licensing scheme, or did the company I work for negotiate a poor deal?
Comments
<strong>You guys read the EULA?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'll put it like this. I pray to the heavens that our Legal department does.
I've read the EULA for Visual Studio 6.0, it's pretty restrictive even though I do not fully grasp the extent of the legalese within it. Heck there is even indications that for Developer Tools MS, has the right to "examine" your code if they deem that you are using the Tool in a fashion that is inconsistant with the Agreement. I'm not sure if that is an Industry wide practice, but again it seems very heavy handed.
<strong>but again it seems very heavy handed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
indeed
Governments (Germany, UK, Norway, Peru, Taiwan etc etc) are at last starting to add up the real costs of running systems with outrageous licensing fees. Corporations have to do the same, and so do individuals (Since this is a Mac site, so it may all sound just like a bad, bad dream)
Want to run that snappy new ATI card on Windows 98...sorry, you will have to buy the 'upgrade' to Windows XP first. It's just the tip of the iceberg from Redmond. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
<strong>As of Friday the company I work for asked me to look into some of the costs of upgrading our users of Visual Studio 6.0 to Visual Studio .NET.
When I asked Why, the rep from our Purchasing department told me that Microsoft is demanding that our company upgrade before 7/31/2002 or risk penalties for using "un-licensed" software.
Although I had heard about Microsoft's deadlines regarding upgrading some of their products for corporate users, I was shocked at how Draconian the measures they are taking were.
It seems that in the case of the Visual Development tools, if a company is using Visual Studio 6.0 (and this includes all varients of the package, Professional, Enterprise, etc) and does not upgrade to the .NET branded version Microsoft will charge full-price for the upgrades (companies get special pricing before 7/31/2002) and will charge additional fees for failing to be in licensing compliance every month as long as the corporation continues to use the older product.
To add insult to injury, the company I work for was not notified of some of these conditions until THIS WEEK.
I was shown the pricing list, and due to some issues at my workplace I cannot share them here, but I can say the pricing is extremely high.
The effect on my company is the costs imposed by Microsoft are tearing into IT budgets that could potientially cost people thier jobs since my company has not been doing well for the last several quarters.
The silver lining in this story however is that my company has a very vocal Open Source community that has been begging our IT department to begin phasing Microsoft products from our server and development areas, with Microsoft pulling this nonsense with its customers clearly they are making it easier for corporations to look at alternative products.
For now, at least in this case, Microsoft's strong arm tactics will probably cost them a customer.
I have been told by others that Microsoft is going to be pulling a similar stunt with users of Windows 2000 in the next six months again, telling their customers that if they do not upgrade to Windows XP they will be faced with penalties for maintaining an older version of the Windows platform.
For those of you working in IT, have you heard about this licensing scheme, or did the company I work for negotiate a poor deal?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We just spent our $100,000 before the deadline. Who knows what's coming after it, since all the vendors are saying to upgrade.
If you do, you pay the money. But, if you do not upgrade when they want you to, you will have to pay full price later. This is so MS can have even more af a contiuous cash flow and even more if you do not pay them when you want it.
The only subscription for Apple users is .Mac, and that ain't required and the price does not go up (for not already registered iTools users) if you do not buy in a certain time..
This is going to be bahd for Microsoft... A lot of people are going to be moving to Apple
Because consumers are going to hate having to upgrade all the time...
GO STOCK! RAISE YOUR WINGS AND FLAP YOUR WEIGHT TO A HIEGHT OF GLORY! <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
This is because Windows 98 is no longer supported. It is outdated. You can't run USB on Linux kernel 2.2 without a hack, and you can't run it on kernel 2.0 or sooner at all. You can't run rendevous (probably spelled wrong) on OS 9 or even OS 8.5. This is the same thing. OSes move on with time. Unfortunately Microsoft adds spyware and 'features' that no one will use and tries to force them on everyone. The only 'bare bones' windows that you can load are windows 98 and sooner. But thems are the brakes. Don't knock MS for doing that, every OS has to do that. MS is acting as a business, and it is in MS's interests to make people upgrade and force things on you. In a capitalist society, all busniesses strive to be monopolies, even though monopolies hurt the economy. It's the greed that striving for monopolies creates that is what fuels the economy. When monopolies form it's the government's duty to intervene (thought this is debatable). Don't knock MS for being a monopoly, knock people for not doing anything about it. Knock the shareholders in MS that own a controlling percentage of the company. They have the power to change this, but they don't. They're not even making money either, MS hasn't paid any dividends yet. Even though it holds $40 billion in liquid funds (funds that can be turned into cash within a year). This is a company that is not going to be hurting any time soon, unless the opposition gets massive support or government intervention.
MicroSoft wants you to pay them an annual fee and even if they do not come out with any upgrades in that time you still have to pay !
I have a friend who works as an IT administrator who's been receiving these threats. It's amusing. I started talking to him (gently) about Linux/MacOS about 2 years ago (he was very standoffish) and he's been gradually coming around. It's taken quite a while, but I think he'll get there.
As an aside, however, he quite likes .NET
Hasn't figured out what to do with it yet...
You don't "buy" the software, you "license" it.
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
<strong>Fans of the company of .Mac bitching about subscription software? Odd.
You don't "buy" the software, you "license" it.
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Different things and you know it grover. .Mac is not required in anyway to allow you use your computer or develop software. It's optional and there are no penalties levied for not joining. Anyway, I should have ignored the flamebait, but I couldn't help myself. **shame on me**
Just trolling to make things interesting for the other new mods?
As an aside, however, he quite likes .NET
Hasn't figured out what to do with it yet... <hr></blockquote>
Pendrake, tell your chum to keep an eye on the <a href="http://go-mono.com/"; target="_blank">mono project</a>, which is progressing very quickly.
Maybe it's time to <a href="http://ximian.com/solutions/y2pay.html"; target="_blank">make the switch</a> and stop paying M$ to make pains in the asses of themselves.
Eh... who forces anyone to accept those rules when they license the software?
If there was physical coercion then there is certainly a case against Microsoft.
<strong>Fans of the company of .Mac bitching about subscription software? Odd.
You don't "buy" the software, you "license" it.
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
.Mac is a service rendered, not software purchased.