From: "Tony Ingenoso" 

Maybe they'd reconsider...look at the prices on eBay for NT Server...

"Chris G"  wrote in message
news:Xns93563FEABE34tummuzyahoocom997{at}216.144.1.254...
> My client is in the unenviable position of needing to purchase licenses
> for some servers.  In the last several days, all my price quotes went
> out the window (no pun intended) because of the version change to
> Win2k/2k3 server.  As commented on earlier, the who damned client
> licensing sux, too.  I wish I could just buy 1 CAL that would take care
> of what I need (Term Svcs, Exchange, File Sharing, SQL, etc...)
>
> Their licensing is so confusing that I can't even tell what I need half
> the time.  Do I want per seat or per computer?  I guess it is now per-
> user or per-computer.  Again, how to choose?  Ugh, I HATE Microsoft
> stuff.  Buggy (although I know all software has bugs), annoying paper
> clippy guys (yes, he was the first to get uninstalled), expensive, and
> CONFUSING.
>
> Hmm, anyhow.... My client is not liking the expensive price tag I'm
> putting on his software, but MS prices the way they price.
>
> Ok, time for bed.  Vendors will be calling me first thing in the
> morning...
>
> 73's
> K7SLE (Chris)
>
>
> "Geo."  wrote in news:3e8b7f3b$1{at}w3.nls.net:
>
> > "Chris Robinson"
 wrote in message
> > news:3E8A989B.9F9AC1C4{at}NOSPAMtotalise.co.uk...
> >
> >> life.  The problem is that how much more can be done to Windows
> >> servers to
> > make
> >> them actually worth upgrading to?  This is bound to mean un-needed
> >> "functionality" being added in the future to
further insist on
> >> upgrades.
> >
> > I believe the differences between NT4 and W2K and 2003server are
> > significant enough to warrant upgrading, however I think the costs and
> > conditions (licensing terms) can negate a lot of that. But if you just
> > go by functionality I believe I would easily be able to justify
> > upgrades.
> >
> > The problem come in with the difference from NT4 to W2K being that
> > it's attractive for huge corporate networks but the features are not
> > there for small networks and in fact work as a disincentive for small
> > networks because of active directory. But it is a time sensitive
> > disincentive, as hardware gets more powerful and cheaper the added
> > complexity becomes less of an issue.
> >
> > Geo.
> >
> >
> >
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4