Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us! - Brian Madden - BrianMadden.com
Brian Madden Logo
Your independent source for desktop virtualization, consumerization, and enterprise mobility management.
Brian Madden's Blog

Past Articles

Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!

Written on Apr 19 2012 36,282 views, 28 comments


by Brian Madden

From the I-swear-I'm-not-making-this-up department, yesterday Microsoft announced a new license for Windows 8 which will be known as the "Companion Device License" (CDL). This is a license for users who want to access their Windows desktops (either locally in a VM or remotely via VDI) from personal non-licensed devices at work. The CDL is something that a company will buy in addition to Software Assurance (SA).

The CDL solves a licensing problem that a lot of people don't even know exists: If a user brings his or her own personal non-licensed device into work (personal laptop, iPad, Android phone, etc.) and uses it to access a fully-licensed Windows desktop, the company is supposed to buy a VDA license for every different device the user uses. (How the company supposed to know this is beyond me?)

It's really weird because this only applies to employee-owned devices the user uses at the office. If the user has a personal device at outside the office, there's a set of rights with SA called Extended Roaming Rights (ERR) that cover it already. (So, a user can use their iPad to access a VDI desktop from home, the coffee shop, or the airport no problem, but if they bring that same iPad into work, the company is supposed to buy VDA for it?!?)

Clearly this is an asinine policy, and this is exactly what the new CDL will address. (The root of the problem, by the way, is that Microsoft licenses the Windows OS by device. That was fine in 1992 when companies had a 1-to-1 user-to-device ratio. But in today's world it's crazy. But rather than just switching Windows SA over to "per user" instead of "per device," Microsoft instead chose to create layer-upon-layer of crazy add-on hacks to their SA program.)

Again, I want to point out that the CDL is something that makes sense because it gets rid of that crazy problem of trying to figure out who's using personal devices at work, but unfortunately you have to buy CDL on top of SA!! So we're kind of right back where we started. Now you still have to track which users are using personal devices at work so you can buy a CDL add-on for them. How this is "better meeting customers' needs" is beyond me? It seems like since it's hard to track who uses which devices where, companies will want to cover themselves so they'll just buy the CDL add-on for everyone. So congratulations Microsoft, you injected a stealth price increase to SA. (It's their version of a protection racket.)

But wait, it gets better! If you use a Windows ARM tablet, you don't need CDL or VDA

I swear to God I'm not making this up, but if a user's non-licensed personal device happens to run Windows RT (which is the final name for the Windows-on-a-chip that will ship on ARM-based tablets), then the company doesn't need to buy the CDL add-on if the user happens to bring his or her tablet into the office to access their primary SA-covered desktop. In fact Windows RT tablets automatically include something called "Extended VDA" rights (which is like VDA as long as the user has a primary device that's covered by SA).

This is messed up in so many ways I don't even know where to begin.

  • CDL only applies to user-owned devices. So it's not like the company can say, "Oh cool, this is a benefit of buying Windows RT ARM-based tablets" because individual end users are going to make those purchases, not the company. And I can't envision an environment where rank-and-file citizens are buying Windows RT tablets.
  • Microsoft said this Extended VDA benefit for Windows RT tablets "will make Windows RT a great complementary tablet option for business customers." That is the exact opposite of what we (Jack Madden, Nathan Coutinho, and me) decided in our previous articles on our radio show. Remember Windows RT can't be domain-joined, can't have Group Policy applied to it, and can't run existing Windows apps, so we felt that cemented it as a consumer device, while businesses would buy x86-based tablets.
  • How is this policy even legal from an antitrust standpoint? So if a user buys a Microsoft-based consumer tablet, they let you connect into their business-based solutions for free? But if a user buys an iOS or Android device, the company has to buy the CDL?
  • And finally, so now we have another license option to track for some users some times, depending on where they use their devices and what platform they run? Ironically as the world of IT moves away from caring about the device—"just connect anywhere from anything!"—Microsoft takes a huge step backwards and makes us track even more stuff.

So if you thought that virtual desktop licensing was bad in Windows 7, here's how it's been "upgraded" for Windows 8:

Windows 8 licensing is different

Windows 7 licensing has been updated for Windows 8

Speaking of Nathan Coutinho (the guy who works for CDW and has been our source for translating / debunking Microsoft's crazy licensing), Nathan snapped a photo of a napkin-style drawing he made to show which licenses you need for which scenarios for Windows 8:

Nathans awesome licensing chart

Click the image to see Nathan's blog post on Microsoft's licensing changes. Then add Nathan's blog to your RSS reader.

 

One more thing: Hey Microsoft! 2007 called. They want their Windows-on-a-stick back!

One of the new benefits of Windows 8 virtual desktop licensing is a specific license for "Windows To Go," which is a Windows 8 Pro desktop on a bootable external USB stick. Microsoft says, "This will allow IT organizations to support the 'Bring Your Own PC' trend and businesses can give contingent staff access to the corporate environment without compromising security."

I haven't looked into Windows To Go to much yet, but if it's a bootable USB stick versus a copy of Windows that runs in a VM, what's the point? I don't think that people want to BYOC just to boot the corporate image to their own hardware. And do you really see users just taking that stick home and freaking rebooting their home PC to fire it up? Man... no way!

This idea was all the rage five years ago (RingCube, MokaFive, VMware ACE), but now… seriously? (MokaFive is still doing this, and they're doing a fine job of it, but even they are more focused on delivering and managing Windows VMs that are loaded onto the devices versus instances booting from USB sticks. And with MokaFive you're just booting a VM—not overtaking the whole computer by booting from a stick.)

And of course, if a user wants to boot Windows To Go from a BYOC personal device in the office, then they need a CDL! :)

Speaking of Office, what about CDL for Office?

One thing that's missing from all these Windows posts is talk about Microsoft Office SA rights. Office SA has been just about the same as Windows SA, so if Microsoft doesn't create CDL for Office then that means that a user accessing Microsoft Office via VDI from a personal device at work will need Windows SA, Windows CDL, plus an Office license for the device. (Unless the user is using Windows RT which has Office built-in? Will that license transfer to the corporate x86 version of remote Office? Stay tuned!)

Speaking of staying tuned, remember that all of this is for Windows 8 which isn't even out yet, so I'm sure we'll get more details over the next few months. But so far, Microsoft's announcements have just created more questions than they've answered, and Microsoft is doing everything they can to continue to frustrate users with their supposed "benefits."

 
 




Our Books


Comments

Shawn Bass wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 11:29 AM Link To This Comment

I just threw up in my mouth reading this...twice.  As if this *** wasn't hard enough already... Go VDI!

Gabe Knuth wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 1:47 PM Link To This Comment
Mads Soerensen wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 2:06 PM Link To This Comment

My 9 week old son and I just jonied Shawn...

And Service Provider are also still getting Butt F... by Microsoft and just wait it's getting even worse, can't say more because of the NDA.

Simon Bramfitt wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 2:54 PM Link To This Comment

I think I have this figured out. Microsoft has a beta program for VDI licensing,  it runs like this:

Microsoft publishes something really really stupid.

We all point out the obvious flaws

Microsoft fixes  one or two of the most egregious shortcomings and leave all the others untouched

I haven't yet worked out how to license either of the following:

Enterprise owned iOS or Android device, Will there still be a standalone VDA license to cover these scenarios?

Devices that are neither employee owned or enterprise owned i.e. hotel lobby machine, kiosk, device owned by a friend, neighbor, dog etc.

The fifth employee owned device, CDL only supports four employee owned devices, and round my house right now I have 5 PCs, tablets, smartphones etc.

And finally, based on past experience, what are the chances that Microsoft will actually have the technology to allow an enterprise IT organization to ensure that it remains in compliance?

Denis Gundarev wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 3:30 PM Link To This Comment

Will I will act as Captain Obvious if I will say that Microsoft is protecting their business?

I'm clearly understand why different DaaS providers,VDI vendors and even consultants want to change MS licensing - it will introduce new markets and bring new cash in their pockets.

But this cash is in Microsoft pocket now, is there any reason for them to change it?

I don't believe that all DaaS providers can do VDI properly, and if they will fail with this, MS will lose this new market.

P.S. I beleive that weird licensing is also brings new leads directly to MS and selected partners, not a big deal of course, but  - take care of the pence and the pounds will take care of themselves. :)

Regards,

Denis,

MCTS: Volume Licensing Specialist, Large Organizations

:)

cjanoch wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 3:50 PM Link To This Comment

I suspect that this new licensing CAL has been introduced to drectly lessen the attractiveness of a corporate BYoD (bring your own device) policy.

It ensures that companies will not be able to decrease licensing costs by no longer providing a "corporate" end-type devices and relying on the End User instead.

I wonder what exactly is the definition of "at the office"?  Is it physical proximity, or LAN access?  If I am a dedicated teleworker over a pinned VPN connection, and I technically a Branch Office?

Brian Madden wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 6:13 PM Link To This Comment

@Simon Bramfitt:

You asked:

> Enterprise owned iOS or Android device, Will there still be a standalone VDA license to cover these scenarios?

Nothing is new here, these are covered by VDA now and would be covered vy VDA in the future. Easy to track since the enterprise bought them.

> Devices that are neither employee owned or enterprise owned i.e. hotel lobby machine, kiosk, device owned by a friend, neighbor, dog etc.

Nothing is new here since these are being used outside of work. They're covered by existing SA Extended Roaming Rights.

> The fifth employee owned device, CDL only supports four employee owned devices, and round my house right now I have 5 PCs, tablets, smartphones etc.

Unlikely you'll bring them all into the office at once, but I agree, it is weird that they have a limit. Four is pretty arbitrary. That said, if you have five and bring them in, you'll need two CDLs. Probably there is a 90-day cycle limit like the other programs.

> And finally, based on past experience, what are the chances that Microsoft will actually have the technology to allow an enterprise IT organization to ensure that it remains in compliance?

Zero

rograham1 wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 7:09 PM Link To This Comment

Are the EULA rights for remote access (and concurrent remote helpdesk access) to a corporate Windows PC still preserved?

"Remote Access Technologies. You may access and use the software installed on the licensed computer remotely from another device using remote access technologies as follows.

· Remote Desktop. The single primary user of the licensed computer may access a session from any other device using Remote Desktop or similar technologies. A “session” means the experience of interacting with the software, directly or indirectly, through any combination of input, output and display peripherals. Other users may access a session from any device using these technologies, if the remote device is separately licensed to run the software.

· Other Access Technologies. You may use Remote Assistance or similar technologies to share an active session."

In other words, do VDA, ERR, CDL only relate to a user's capability to access a VDI'ish environment?

shawneve wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 7:12 PM Link To This Comment

Why can't Microsoft jsut let you license Windows by INSTANCE?

That would be so much simpler and follows the current physical method.

Why should it matter if Windows is installed on bare metal or on emulated bare metal?

If I bought 5 copies, shouldn't I get to decide how/where I run those copies?

Brian Madden wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 7:19 PM Link To This Comment

@Rograham

Correct, the VDA, ERR, CDL, and SA only apply to scenarios where you're virtualizing Windows. (VDI, client VM, etc.) If you have a physical copy of Windows installed onto a physical computer, you don't need SA. The remote access technologies you're mentioning do cover remote assistance, GoToMyPC, etc., but the key is that's for physical desktops only.

Brian Madden wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 7:21 PM Link To This Comment

@Shawneve,

Agreed, it would be easier. So to change it, either complain to your Microsoft sales rep, or stop using Windows.

Remember, you don't buy copies of Windows. You buy licenses to copies of Windows, and Microsoft can specify whatever they want for the licenses you buy at the time of purchase. So only by resisting and pushing back will we get anything to change.

Denis Gundarev wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 8:30 PM Link To This Comment

Nice article about how l learned to stop worrying and love the bomb:

Forget Xbox And Bing: Microsoft Is An Enterprise Company

www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-its-an-enterprise-company-2012-4

Shawn Bass wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 9:51 PM Link To This Comment

@Brian - It's a bit more confusing when discussing client VMs, because the Windows EULA covers the use of a client VM on the licensed copy of Windows.  This VDA, ERR, CDL nonsense is only to cover circumstances of BYOD accessing that client VM either via Display Remoting or now also via the Windows To Go, MokaFive, VMware ACE/Player, View Offline methods as I understand it.  Do you read this the same way?  Is this Microsoft finally acknowledging people are doing this and are creating a license to cover what was otherwise infringement (or at least a twisting of unintentional infringement) before?

Shawn

Kenstervibe wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 19 2012 11:08 PM Link To This Comment

@Shawn Bass

Can you clarify your first sentence?  The Windows EULA allows you to virtualize a copy of Windows to run locally instead of it being installed physically.  The primary user of the licensed Windows device can also remotely RDP into their Windows OS running on their licensed device.

But that doesn't provide the rights for that device to access a Server-hosted Windows desktop VM.  That's why MS put those desktop virtualization rights into SA and VDA.  The devil's in the details.  

So this isn't just about BYOD devices.  For your corporate owned devices, you cannot create 100 desktop VMs to host on your Servers for VDI access.  Those corporate-owned devices need Win SA or VDA licensing to get the Windows virtual desktop OS licensing rights.  

So as it is today, the SA or VDA is required but the big point of contention is that it's required on every corporate device.  So currently, if a company provides for you a workplace desktop plus an iPad --- you need to cover both devices for VDA rights.  So it's not just a BYOD issue but more of a flexibility issue to be able to buy say 1 VDA license per User and allow that user to have access to their Virtual Desktop from any device that they want whether it be company provided, a personal device or any device, anywhere.  

Martin Sheppard wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 9:44 AM Link To This Comment

First off, I agree, this is totally stupid. Microsoft are really pushing aggressively with their licensing to protect their own interests as much as possible. I really thought that Microsoft would redress their licensing issues at least a bit with the Windows 8 release, but it seems that I was wrong.

It will be interesting to see how much CDL is priced at, but regardless it will be a horrible hassle. It will be almost impossible to know which users are connecting their personal devices to a VDI session at work, previously you could justify just ignoring it, but now that a specific license is being introduced and the practice is getting more and more common it is getting harder to ignore. If it is cheap enough, corporations might just buy it for everybody. If it is expensive, there's probably no good solution. Maybe we just guess a number like 10% of employees use this and buy that number of licenses - at least Microsoft will have no way of proving that more than that use it since it will be impossible for anybody to know.

This leaves the most attractive licensing scenario as purchasing a desktop PC and enabling remote desktop - then the primary user of that desktop can remotely connect in from any device and run Office legally without SA, VDA, RD CALs, CDL or anything else. The trouble is that it isn't a particularly attractive architecture.

The other attractive option from a licensing perspective is using Windows Server either in a VDI scenario with 1-1 VMs or shared remote desktop session host sessions. Then you just need per-user CALs and Windows Datacenter licenses (although Office can still be a problem). Despite the limitations of using Windows Server, it would be nice if VDI companies added this as a supported scenario, so that at least it is more of an option to go this way.  

I'm still not sure about Windows RT being just a consumer device. Yes, they have certainly tried to make it attractive to consumers and when you look at the feature list it looks like they have left out the enterprise, but I'm not sure yet whether that is the case. If you look at the MMS day 2 keynote you'll see that while they can't be domain-joined as such, Microsoft are building management infrastructure for them that allows them to interact with the domain. I'm not sure yet whether it is the right approach or whether they'll do a good job of it, but at least they haven't forgotten the enterprise completely.

And did you notice this little gem in the annoucement: "Domain joined PCs and tablets running Windows 8 Enterprise will automatically be enabled to side-load internal, Windows 8 Metro style apps". The implication is that if you don't have SA then you can't side-load Metro apps and if you use ARM then there's no way to side-load. If that's the way it works then how the hell is that going to work? I can't submit my internal apps to the Windows store, so it seems like a great way to kill Enterprise Metro style app development. I just don't get this decision at all.

Shawn Bass wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 10:18 AM Link To This Comment

@KennyC - I understand the purpose of VDA and how it's intended for server hosted VDI.  My statement was in response to Brian's comment three comments above where he highlighted client VM as something that would need VDA, ERR, CDL.  I don't think that's true for Client hosted VMs.  Those rights are provided by regular Windows licensing and/or SA depending on how many VMs you want to run.  That being said, I probably need to look through the Windows EULA again to check on this:

What happens when the client VM that you're accessing is being done remotely via an iPad or any other non-Windows device.  Is this covered under SA virtualization and remote access rights or is this one of those grey areas?

Shawn

Kenstervibe wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 10:23 AM Link To This Comment

Here's a description around the strategy of the WinRT tablets where a lot of people were surprised that it won't have AD/Domain join capabilities.  It looks like the focus will be made around App Management.

blogs.msdn.com/.../managing-quot-byo-quot-pcs-in-the-enterprise-including-woa.aspx

"Developing WOA, however, provided us a unique opportunity to architect how LOB apps can be delivered to users in a way that meets the needs of IT while continuing to guarantee a consistent and reliable end-to-end experience over the life of the PC.

For WOA, we have integrated a new management client that can communicate with a management infrastructure in the cloud to deliver LOB apps to users. You’ll hear more about this management infrastructure at a later date from our friends on the System Center blog, so this post will focus on the benefits and capabilities of the WOA management client itself.

There are actually two parts to the WOA management client: the built-in system component, which we’ll call the agent; and a Metro-style app, which we’ll call the self-service portal, or SSP, that the consumer uses to browse for and install LOB apps made available to them. Both parts of the WOA management client are well behaved Windows 8 apps in terms of user experience, power management/battery life, network awareness (for metered networks), and overall functionality."

SillyRabbit wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 1:29 PM Link To This Comment

I love examples like these because they’re Silly; silly on the part of the vendor and silly on the part of companies willing to put up with it. I suspect that we all respect Microsoft’s desire to protect their investments and products. But ultimately this becomes the reason (i.e. self-fulfilling prophecy) to ditch the complexity due to costs and risk mitigation. Simply put, if you want to implement VDI, it is going to cost you more to access from within your building (infrastructure) than outside your building (why should it matter?). If you use a competitor’s operating system, you’ll pay more (Huh!). If you think you’re in compliance, think again (Huh!).  

This whole “shebang” reminds me of the children’s parlor trick: When you least expect it, expect it.

Simon Bramfitt wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 1:29 PM Link To This Comment

Denis

>I 'm clearly understand why different DaaS providers,VDI vendors and even consultants want to change MS licensing - it will introduce new markets and bring new cash in their pockets.

>But this cash is in Microsoft pocket now, is there any reason for them to change it?

I know what you mean, I've thought about it from that perspective as well, but I'm not sure that opening up this market would take money out of Microsoft's pocket,

At worst this is a zero-sum game, Microsoft does not gain, but the services that can be provided evolve into one's more appropriate for today's market.  If a DaaS provider today can deliver a desktop provided the service consumer holds a VDA license, then why cannot responsibility for holding the license be transferred to the provider i.e., the missing SPLA.  If Microsoft wants to charge more  for an SPLA  than a VDA license so what, the service lives or dies by the ability of the DaaS provider to make the offering attractive. Either Way, Microsoft does not lose anything, and stands to gain a lot.

> I don't believe that all DaaS providers can do VDI properly, and if they will fail with this, MS will lose this new market

I quite agree that some DaaS providers will get it wrong, but why does this matter? If  some DaaS providers don't get it right they will go out of business and the service will transition to those that, Microsoft will lose nothing.

regards

Simon

Rich Brumpton wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 3:11 PM Link To This Comment

"How is this policy even legal from an antitrust standpoint? So if a user buys a Microsoft-based consumer tablet, they let you connect into their business-based solutions for free? But if a user buys an iOS or Android device, the company has to buy the CDL?"

On that point, we have an example with the TSCAL back in Windows 2000 Pro, and XP Pro until 4/04. So no hope there I would think, although some anti-competitive standards are different now.

The best thing I saw above was moving to a per-instance model of Windows. There would be some "you get a free 1/4/unlimited" but I think they could figure that out since the already did so for Windows Server...

Brian Madden wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 4:03 PM Link To This Comment

@Rich, yeah but with TS CALs an 2000/XP Pro, at least that client OS had the same capabilities as the server OS. In the case of VDA/CDL for Win RT, you have a different platform with different capabilities that has a license for another complete thing attached to it. That seems shady.

Icelus wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 4:33 PM Link To This Comment

This change along with many others in the past is Microsoft's frugal attempt to manipulate their monopolized licensing scheme to further increase complexity and try to cloud the customer of what they are really trying to do:

Stall VDI acceptance until Azure is ready.

www.brianmadden.com/.../what-s-microsoft-s-real-reason-for-killing-vecd.aspx

Microsoft's new monopoly will inevitably arrive... Then we may see the licensing slowly ease. Indeed it is an antitrust lawsuit waiting to happen, but I am sure they can claim ignorance and say they weren't intentionally stalling the market they just didn't understand it, hence the lucrative licensing.

Despite the $100/year retail price tag of VDI, I am positive noticeable discounts are offered, but am not at liberty to say.

I'm rooting for Guise on this battle.

SillyRabbit wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Fri, Apr 20 2012 8:45 PM Link To This Comment

@Rich - I'll take off my Silly hat for a moment and address monopolistic and Anti-trust issues for a moment. Here's where I'll defend MS by saying that this is legal from a usage and pay-per-compliance standpoint. They are not forcing you to use "their hardware" without making their infrastructure accessible (unlike, ahem, Apple). None of us like this licensing policy. It blatantly sucks. And we'll all probably pay to make sure we're compliant. But it stinks and there are alternatives.

We're punching Microsoft for doing what many of our companies do to our customers. We lock them in by creating sticking points. This isn't monopolistic. It's capitalistic.

You can comply, you can put up a fight directly with your MS rep and hope for a discount, or you can throw this shiola out and find ways of changing (and being recognized for helping your companies).

How about another scenario: We tell Microsoft loud and clear what we really want: A flat fee for all-you-can-eat... That does not sound appealing to me if I sit in a business owner's chair.

As a well-read forum, let's try and change this crappy licensing model via intelligent feedback and maybe offer alternatives directly to our contacts AND friends at Microsoft. (ok, now I'm being Silly again).

Thomas McKinley wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Sun, Apr 22 2012 7:38 PM Link To This Comment

I may be strange, but I don't see it as MS screwing anyone but themselves..

The ship has sailed, the way people work with computing Devices has drastically changed already.. and just you wait a few years.  The cost and licensing models will be simplified one way or another.  As has been stated many times by Bm people and users will do what they want because they can.

don't look to MS to change anything to speed the progress of "consumerization" or lessen the mighty pc in anyway...atleast for now.

Petri Rantanen wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Tue, Apr 24 2012 5:19 AM Link To This Comment

First of all it's Microsoft product, they can do anything they like with licensing.

If  MS license Windows like most of us want (per user), there is a possibility that whole windows will became like Windows XP mode in WIndows 7. Windows will be just one platform to run "legacy" applications, users can use Mac, iPad, Android or whatever device there will be.

Expect to see changes also on Terminal Server licensing.

Emmanuelb wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Tue, Apr 24 2012 6:51 AM Link To This Comment

Try desktop virtualization on Linux with Userful: www.userful.com.

No annoying Windows licensing needed!

You can even create virtual cloud session on Windows OS!

CW McCall wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, Apr 26 2012 4:00 PM Link To This Comment

I hate to even ask, but what about SPLA? Microsoft totally abandoned them in the current VDI licensing structure, at least from the standpoint of DaaS vendors. I can't imagine Windows 8 is going to be the panacea for SPLA customers...

Gabe Carrejo wrote re: Microsoft announces virtual desktop licensing changes for Windows 8. Guess what? They're still screwing us!
on Thu, May 10 2012 12:15 PM Link To This Comment

Remote PC was announced to embrace customer demand of using the VDA on physical PCs in a 1-1 manner.

We've done a few things with this release that I am very excited to share:

1. The Citrix display adapter does not break the hardware graphic vendors display adapter

2. WDDM multi-monitor support

3. WDDM remoting that uses thinwire instead of uncompressed images

4. Correct monitor blanking and audio redirection with Aero redirection support

5. A service the autocreates the Catalog, Desktop group and maps unregistered VDAs to the Catalog, Desktop Group and user. All you need to do is use ESD to deploy the VDA. No console administration required. (yay!)

6. Expirimental support for Wake on LAN with Intel AMT technologies communities.intel.com/.../intel-and-citrix--remote-pc-feature-for-xendesktop

There is a current Tech Preview program, so contact your Citrix sales engineer for more info; or if you don't know their name, feel free to drop me a note at gabe.carrejo@citrix.com

Thanks!

(Note: You must be logged in to post a comment.)

If you log in and nothing happens, delete your cookies from BrianMadden.com and try again. Sorry about that, but we had to make a one-time change to the cookie path when we migrated web servers.