Are single user Terminal Server VMs running on Windows Datacenter a loophole for VDI without SA?

Well now the issue I see is the definition of 'administration'. As part of daily duties for managing a server/environment someone may need to write scripts using Word, monitor emails (using Outlook) and may be even using Excel and SAP. :-)

Jokes aside they will have to clearly define what 'Remote Administration' means what opens a whole can of worms as anyone can claim anything regarding how they manage/administer their environments.

Locally I assume you need nothing as they clearly state 'remotely hosted by Windows Server' what is definitely not the case when you are using your laptop/desktop with a server OS.

Regardless, another major PITA with Microsoft Licensing. Well, this was expected and it is typical coming from them...

First I agree with the comments that Claudio Rodrigues made.  

I do not agree fully with the statement “Clients and servers are on different patch cycles, adding to management complexity”.

To understand where I am going with this you would need to read an old blog I wrote:

blogs.technet.com/.../windows-sp1-is-now-out-how-exciting.aspx

Windows 7 is binary identical to Windows 2008 R2, just as Win7 SP1 is binary identical to Windows 2008 R2 SP1 hence the reason why there is a single download for the service pack and a single download for the symbols.

So in reference to “Clients and servers are on different patch cycles, adding to management complexity”.

Keep in mind there are 3 different types of operating system binaries RTM, QFE, GDR although these terms have changed fairly recently the concepts remain almost identical to what I am about to describe.  RTM is released code you would be in stores or in the original .iso file.  QFE binaries are built from one of many hotfix code trees, and GDR is for a binary that contains a smaller set of QFE fixes but it allows you to place less code changes on your system thus resulting in less code changes being applied before they are tested. Up until development locks down the code base mostly all QFE changes roll up into the RTM or service pack code, this gets very tricky and a little off topic for this post.

Microsoft performs rigorous tests on patches.  Let’s suppose there is a bug in IIS, Microsoft will release a patch to both the client and server because they can both contain IIS.  Let’s suppose Microsoft releases a patch for the certificate authority, there is no need to release that patch on the client because the client OS does not include the CA role as an option.  To sum it up you should not find that clients and servers are on different patch cycles, I suspect someone at Microsoft in Marketing who does not truly understand the internals of the OS’s wrote that.

In short I agree with what Brian is saying here and suspect this blog will create a firestorm of discussion.

In terms of the server operating systems and client operating systems being different this is true that they act different.  So any given action could take several patches because at runtime there is logic in the binaries to detect the version of the OS.  This information is obtainable from the OSVERSIONINFOEX structure which is called by the GetVersionEx() and VerifyVersionInfo() API calls. Reference msdn.microsoft.com/.../ms724833(v=vs.85).aspx .

This is very techy I know but bottom line is that Windows 2008 R2 and Windows 7 SP1 are the same product from a development standpoint and when Windows 2008 R2 is configured to look and act like Windows 7 things will generally work the way you would expect them to.

It is very true that applications or even the OS may not do the right thing. In these rare cases where you hit poorly written code the application can be fixed by the developer or you can use an application shim to effectively lie to the OS and “fix up” the GetVersionEx() or VerifyVersionInfo() calls at runtime.  This comment should cover most cases and keep in mind that I am talking about extreme edge cases here most of the time you should expect the results that Brian suggests in the blog.  Great post Brian!

Greg Lirette – Greg@lirette.net

Sorry typo the comment should have stated "So any given action could take several paths because at runtime there is logic in the binaries to detect the version of the OS."

One additional impact.  With Win7/SA you need to purchase MDOP add-on to get App-V (and those other things that few people actually use).

The 2008 R2 RDS Cal, and the 2008 TS Cal (deemed to be "functionally equivalent" by Microsoft, both include a license to use the App-V client on the server.  I discussed this in this White Paper: www.tmurgent.com/.../Windows_Server_2008_R2_CALs_and_AppV.pdf

Hmmm.... when will Microsoft wake up and realize the gem they have with TS/RDS and how much revenue could actually be made from this goldmine versus VDI... a solution for less than 1 - 2% of business case scenarios at best?...Microsoft Corp -- big disconnect from what their sales people need for solution sets versus what Microsoft Corp is pushing out to the market.....  

Just to clarify, you DO own the underlying product license when you purchase Software Assurance (SA). SA is designed to give you additional benefits on top of the product  license, such as upgrade rights, training vouchers, packaged services benefits, etc. SA is normally purchased and annualized over a 3 year term. At the end of your term you can chose to chose to purchase another 3 year term of SA, or, not. But either way, it's important to understand that the LICENSE and the SA on the license are 2 different things. Once you buy the license, its yours to keep forever. If you bought Windows 7 w/ SA on a 3 year term, you can let SA expire when the term is up and you still own that Windows 7  license forever.

Claudio is, as ever, right. RDS is for remote administration, not running a remote desktop for that you need RDS.

Greg is right as well, not that it matters. Microsoft provided the real reason why this idea isn't going to fly

"Additionally, most vendors do not offer support for client applications running on servers."

if your app vendor won't support running their app on a server OS, and why should they, then you are going to have a hard time selling this idea to your internal customers.  This doesn't rule the idea out completely, I can think of a couple of organizations that would consider this type of idea if it would deliver any major benefit,but honestly what do you get from it beyond saving a few $? If you want to save money with VDI there are far easier ways than this.

Many applications for end users were written for a client OS and not a server OS. Each of your applications would need to be retested to ensure compatibility with a Server OS. Additionally, most vendors do not offer support for client applications running on servers.

Is this what they tell their Terminal Services customers as well?

I can't see any medium or large enterprise seriously adopting this. The support headache and overheads associated with this would be a nightmare and surely outweigh the cost saving.

Many applications for end users were written for a client OS and not a server OS. Each of your applications would need to be retested to ensure compatibility with a Server OS. Additionally, most vendors do not offer support for client applications running on servers.

Is this what they tell their Terminal Services customers as well?

I can't see any medium or large enterprise seriously adopting this. The support headache and overheads associated with this would be a nightmare and surely outweigh the cost saving.

Don't forget that SA allows you to have 1+4 desktop instances (1 physical and 4 virtual).

What that means is since VDA is included in SA, you can deploy client thin pc (Windows ThinPC) and remote VDI desktop using only one license.

Roaming rights are also interesting here (but I would still prefer per-user licenses :)).

What can be also interesting for many small customers (and most people are not aware of this) is that it's not only VDA\SA that allows you to connect to client desktop, but also Intune licenses (VDA\SA\Intune are equal).

Martin

Nice article, Brian. You describe the approach that we've taken at Leostream Mobile Desktops (www.leostreamdesktops.com) to provide public-cloud hosted Windows desktop. By leveraging the Microsoft Windows Server 2008 licensing agreement that Amazon has with Microsoft, we provide folks with inexpensive Windows Servers that can be used as desktops. Instead of needing an entire OS license, the customer needs only the appropriate, and less expensive, RDS CAL.

OK it was a late night, what I should have said was

Claudio is, as ever, right. RDS is for remote administration, not running a remote desktop, for that you need VDA or SA.

Ancient thread, but my SPLA contact at HP confirms that WS2008 R2 VDI guests are permissable...just not Win 7.

Weird.