March 1, 2005 at 5:12 pm
Last week Microsoft announced the new versions and pricing for SQL Server 2005. Our own, Brian Knight wrote an comparison of the editions, which we published this week and it was kind of exciting to read the new features and how Microsoft seems to be courting the smaller business and lower end users with the Workgroup edition.
And memory was increased, probably needed with the CLR, but still, the low cost workgroup edition can use 3GB and Standard can use an unlimited amount!!! That's huge as many installations before had to upgrade to Enterprise to go above 2GB, which was an expensive proposition.
However, then I saw this opinion on licensing over at eWeek. Is Microsoft Double Dipping as the article implies?
It seems that there are now two classes of CALs (Client Access Licenses) with SQL Server. There's the standard CAL, which works with all editions of SQL Server as an alternative to licensing by the CPU. For many smaller companies, this is the option that is chosen. Right now these list for about US$146 apiece, a pretty hefty sum.
But now there's a Workgroup CAL, that's supposedly $30 cheaper according to the article. While this may seem like it's a penalty for the Standard and Enterprise users, and that's how the article is written. However, it seems to me this is a "discount" for those that are budgetary constrained and are buying the workgroup edition anywhere. Most of the places I've worked would just buy the Standard or Enterprise editions and we wouldn't be worried about saving a few dollars in CALs since it isn't that much with a big budget. But if you're a 30 person company trying to run Great Plains and build some apps for your business, saving a few dollars can add up quickly.
I have to admit that the first page of the article is marketed well. It seems like Microsoft is being underhanded and I'm sure lots of people jumped in to read it (like me), either in a panic they were getting overcharged, or laughing at another example of the Evil Empire. Even the continuation line to the second page is "Next Page: Beware if you think you'll upgrade from Workgroup." And on the second page, near the end, there is Microsoft's clarification that you will be some type of upgrade if you need to grow.
To me this is a great example of why I don't necessarily trust most media. I even have to stop and question what I write sometimes, trying hard not to lean people one way or another just for the sake of doing that. It's fine to express your opinion, but you shouldn't mislead people when you do it.
Even though I don't agree with the way Microsoft runs their business and I'm not thrilled with some of their practices, I'll call them out when it's appropriate. Not just to generate a few hits.
Steve Jones
March 2, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I agree 100%. That article was silly, and obviously written in anti-microsoft fantasy land. She makes no valid points - how can you complain that your workgroup edition CAL, which you bought for less then a standard edition CAL, doesn't qualify for use on standard edition?
Anyway, I think the new Workgroup edition is a perfect fit and now gives us a low cost option for the 5 - 30 person companies.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 1 (of 1 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply