Thursday, May 22, 2008

Another VECD Bomb

I've brought up and discussed that I am upset that you need software assurance to GET a VECD license (the only Microsoft license that legally lets you run a VDI be it Vista or an XP machine by choosing downgrade rights.) So here is another gotcha to get your blood boiling.
You don't own a VECD license and unless you renew your software assurance each year you are illegally running VDI's. They've got you locked in. Have a gander at this from the FAQ on VECD

Can I continue to order or use VECD for Software Assurance after my agreement (and corresponding Software Assurance) has expired?

No. VECD for Software Assurance (the license intended for traditional PCs licensed for Windows Vista with Software Assurance) may not be ordered or used after expiration of Software Assurance coverage. The license is only available for PCs with active Windows Software Assurance coverage. VECD (for thin clients or Windows PCs without Software Assurance) may be procured under any valid EA, Select License, or CASA enrollment. However, the subscription co-terminates with the enrollment and may not be extended beyond the expiration date without the renewal of the agreement.

Shaking head, all these companies telling me that VDI is the end all be all here is another PITA that you have to deal with. I don't need software assurance. As a library we get software pretty inexpensively. We change our PC's/Servers every 3 years and get NEW OS's for them. There is no inherent reason to pay a yearly price for them.

Hate to say it but VDI continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Couldn't agree with you more, as a consultant I have pushed for the emergence of VDI and have generated enormous interest, for Citrix XenDesktop - VMWare View - or Panologic. In all cases you need an OS and the VECD destorys these deals. Its way to expensive, and I know I personally hate the idea of paying a yearly fee for something were XP has lasted... what 7 years. All we want to do is "legally" virtualize it.

However what makes me the most upset is if I buy XP/Vista/7 why is Microsoft allowed to charge me if i choose to deploy that virtually. Honestly this seems like a law suit to me, how to choose to use my license should be my prerogative, not something Microsoft should be able to screw me on. Why not charge me more to install XP on a HP hardware verses Dell, the hardware is virtual in this case so I don't see any difference.