Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Won't Charge More for Multicore Licenses

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the great-order-up-a-few-dozen-cores dept.

Microsoft 234

esimp writes "According to technewsworld: 'As servers with dual-core processors come closer to hitting the market, Microsoft announced today it will not base its per-processor software licensing charges on the number of cores in a chip, sticking to the traditional price per processor, regardless of its number of cores." Update: 10/20 00:37 GMT by T : One of the identical links to TechNewsWorld's story has now been deleted.

cancel ×

234 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What's today's date? (0, Troll)

null etc. (524767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570524)

Is today April 1?

Re:What's today's date? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570620)

Re:What's today's date? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570631)

Warning -- parent is a GNAA troll - the links take you to a GNAA crap site.

Don't click on the links above.

~m

Re:What's today's date? (-1, Flamebait)

null etc. (524767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570792)

Thanks alot fuckwad. Hell has a special circle of hell reserved for you.

Mrs. Bailey, the retards escaped from special ed class and got into the computer room.

Re:What's today's date? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570632)

Is today April 1?

No, it's October 19th. It's clearly marked right below the subject.

{and if the mods mark this informative i'll kill my self}

Re:What's today's date? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570772)

{and if the mods mark this informative i'll kill my self}

Lucky for you I don't have mod points at the moment, then.

Re:What's today's date? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570836)

Mod parent up

Mod Parent Up! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570866)

Rid the world of the Anonymous Coward.

fp for a nonsubscriber? (-1, Offtopic)

DraconPern (521756) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570525)

is it possible to get a fp?

Re:fp for a nonsubscriber? (-1, Offtopic)

lakcaj (811907) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570544)


It is possible, but not if you handle is DraconPern :P

At least they're... (-1, Troll)

gatsu (781783) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570526)

...raping you a little less.

Both links are the same! (5, Funny)

byolinux (535260) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570531)

Who actually monitors the 'daddypants' account anyway? I know the number of times I've bothered to report errors has been greater than the number of replies I've got or number of errors fixed (ie. none)

Anyway, um, lovely that Microsoft aren't charging for multicore licenses. I'm still amazed they even charge for SMP licenses.

Re:Both links are the same! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570565)

What is daddypants?

Re:Both links are the same! (4, Informative)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570757)

For subscriber preview, you have an e-mail address you can mail to if you notice any errors/mistakes that you may see in the story.

That e-mail address happens to be daddypants @ slashdot.org, hence the parent poster's comment.

Re:Both links are the same! (1)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570590)

It depends on who is monitoring the account, I suppose. But on the whole, I've noticed that Jeff Bates (Jamie) is a whole lot more responsive and fixes the errors.

There've been times when I've mailed DP for someone else's story, and Jeff mails me back. But to be fair, there've been times when Timothy has responded, too.

So, I guess it really is a question of how much time they have - for Slashdot :)

Slashdot posts dupe in original story! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570699)

Film at 11.

You Daft Bugger! (2, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570702)

Who actually monitors the 'daddypants' account anyway? I know the number of times I've bothered to report errors has been greater than the number of replies I've got or number of errors fixed (ie. none)

You daft bugger! Wasn't it obvious? They're both on the same core!

Anyway, um, lovely that Microsoft aren't charging for multicore licenses. I'm still amazed they even charge for SMP licenses.

Discount on bugs donchaknow.

Re:Both links are the same! (0, Offtopic)

FuzzzyLogik (592766) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570741)

I am 1 for 1... being a subscriber i seen a story that was a duplicate and emailed immediately with a link to the first story and it was removed about 2 or 3 minutes after i sent it.

Re:Both links are the same! (4, Funny)

arcanumas (646807) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570750)

It's a dual core article :)

Obviously (2, Insightful)

usefool (798755) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570537)

Maybe MS thinks they can't really argue processor = core. Well, actually they can if they wanted to.

But more seriously, is it a sign that MS has more benefits from this arrangement?

Re:Obviously (2, Insightful)

Rosyna (80334) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570596)

I don't know... I don't know of a Linux vender that charges per Processor. Nor does Apple charge more for OS X server on a dual proc machine.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

slash-tard (689130) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570700)

Redhat ES vs AS server are based on CPU.

Re:Obviously (1)

DikSeaCup (767041) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570892)

I'm not so sure you can draw the same parallel here ... AS is supposed to have more features than ES, aside from the appropriateness of it being able to run on "More than 2 processors". But if you bought AS, it would cost you the same no matter how many processors you ran it on (1, 2, 4, ...). Admittedly ES is supposed to only scale up to 2 processors. Anyone out there try to run ES on something that has more than two processors? Results?

Re:Obviously (4, Funny)

Kehvarl (812337) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570878)

You forgot about SCO. $699 per procesor, what a highway robbery.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

Martin Blank (154261) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570720)

Fewer pissed-off home users who don't have to pay an extra fee to use the second 'CPU,' I would imagine.

But why is this news? Microsoft confirmed this back when Hyperthreading first came out. They were charging on the basis of sockets, not cores.

Re:Obviously (4, Informative)

Vaevictis666 (680137) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570755)

As mentioned on The Register, they're not doing this so much for the OS side of things, but for the server software. Oracle charges per core, but is MS SQL Server charges per processor, that's half the cost right there. If Oracle or whoever switched models, that's more or less half gross revenue from that product gone.

Suggested reasoning for this was that we didn't charge more when processors increased in speed by upping the clock rate, so why do it when processors increase speed by adding more cores on the die?

Re:Obviously (0, Redundant)

CypherOz (570528) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570841)

Would someone tell Oracle!! Oracle is per core. On a P4 HT chip Oracle count 2 CPUs.

Whew, I was so worried (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570876)

since my multi-proc machines run Debian or Red Hat anyways.

Hurray for them! (3, Funny)

codepunk (167897) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570538)

I bet debian does not charge more either. Oh hell I am willing to go out on a limb and suggest that Red Hat will probably not either.

Re:Hurray for them! (0, Redundant)

c0d3m4n (680120) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570660)

I know for a fact that Slackware doesn't. Otherwise, I'm outside the bounds of that hefty License it's under, using 2 CPUs right now.

Re:Hurray for them! (3, Funny)

zx75 (304335) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570678)

Oh yeah? Well I bet they'll both charge double what they're currently charging and we'll see whose right!

Re:Hurray for them! (4, Funny)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570682)

Actually, Debian charges twice as much for dual cores. Quadruple cores will receive a discount, and only cost 3.95 times 0.

Re:Hurray for them! (3, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570856)

What, do they run their billing software on an old Pentium?

SCO likewise will charge twice as much for Linux running dual-core processors, which means they will also receive 2 times 0 for each copy of Linux.

Re:Hurray for them! (2, Interesting)

alanbs (784491) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570835)

It should be no surprise that this is so. Although I am sure that dual core will eventually get to the mainstream desktop pcs, they will probably initially be heavily used on servers.

Although people are accustomed to paying per processor for servers, dual cores are another chance for Microsoft to make it seem like they have a good deal on their servers over Linux. Of course Linux is free, and if Microsoft charged for each core, that would be another reason to choose Linux. Microsoft is already facing worse and worse odds in the server market, so this is their next deffensive manuver (in addition to all the FUD with their truth about Linux garbage).

Very similar indeed... (5, Funny)

AndyCampbell (801057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570539)

That story on technewsworld is very similar indeed to the story on technewsworld.

Re:Very similar indeed... (1)

XpirateX (691224) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570788)

For those that care, it was also reported on OSNews a bit ago too. OSNews [osnews.com]

Re:Very similar indeed... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570805)

Looks like the editors decided to simplify things and just put the dupe in the same story as the original, rather than creating a separate article.

Similar? (0, Redundant)

thejll (643053) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570540)

There's a similar story at... excatly the same location.

Virtualization (4, Insightful)

superpulpsicle (533373) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570541)

Of course not, like everything else is becoming more virtualized. What if someone has 1 xeon counting as 2 processors running windows. Then they install vmware to install many windows OSes for testing. is that still 1 CPU? No lawyer can move at the pace of engineers!!!

Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading (4, Insightful)

ajiva (156759) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570542)

Microsoft did the same thing with Hyperthreading, where under WindowsXP the number of physical processors determined if you needed to run Home or Professional. Previously, under Win2k if you had a dual HT machine, Win2k saw the machine as a quad processor and forced you to install advanced server to get the full performance. Under WinXP, you only need Professional (or home if you have a single processor).

Re:Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading (5, Informative)

Zeever (215572) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570703)

There's one difference: HT (Intel's SMT) is a way to use the processor resources more efficiently. Dual Core is like having two real CPU's (not exactly, because they share lots of stuff). The performance difference between HT and Dual Core is abysmal.

Re:Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570754)

That last sentence was sort of ambiguous. Do you mean that dualcore is abysmal compared to HT or the opposite or something else?

Re:Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading (3, Funny)

say (191220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570787)

I think he ment deep as an abyss. Which is an interesting use of the english language.

Re:Microsoft did the same with Hyperthreading (1)

John Courtland (585609) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570927)

Indeed it is :) Nice sig BTW.

In other news... (4, Funny)

stienman (51024) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570543)

In other news, computer manufacturers report sales of multi processor single core machines are down, while customers are clamoring for multi core single processor machines.

MS is expected to revise it's statement tomorrow.

-Adam

Re:In other news... (2, Funny)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570588)

There aren't any commercially available multicore computers that run a Microsoft operating system. This is a bit forward-looking as dual core won't be available for maybe a year anyway.

omitted (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570545)

what about hard-core?

Breaking News Bulletin (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570546)

Major US Company with virtual monopoly on product decides not to screw over customers. Details to follow.

Re:Breaking News Bulletin (3, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570727)

The details we won't hear are, of course, the various deals Microsoft cut with Intel and AMD to set their pricing this way. I mean let's face it, in one fell swoop MS could effectively end the chances of multicore processors if they decided to set a different pricing scheme. I wonder what they asked for...

Jedidiah.

Smart move (4, Insightful)

metlin (258108) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570547)

Nevertheless, software vendors have proceeded cautiously on the core question, with rivals IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft and others waiting to see how the others approach the issue, partly to learn what works and partly to have the opportunity to counter, according to DiDio.

Good to see that atleast MS is brave enough to go ahead and do what they will. As much as I do not like their policies, atleast they didn't sit around waiting for others to show the way.

She said IBM is in a different situation since it makes money not only from software and services but also from hardware.

Ofcourse! This would mean that IBM would take up a position that hurt's Microsoft's stance :)

Should prove interesting.

somewhat... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570548)

You're right, Timothy... those stories do somewhat resemble each other...

Will licensing costs remain the same? (5, Interesting)

ffattizzi (516177) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570552)

While this seems like good news, I suspect after multi core server become common (or sooner) it will cost more per processor to license these applications.

-Frank

Common Sense (4, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570561)

It's just common sense. Imagine if Ford built a twin-engine car and the government wants to charge twice the road tax....

Re:Common Sense (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570609)

>>It's just common sense. Imagine if Ford built a twin-engine car and the government wants to charge twice the road tax....

You would put this past our government?

Re:Common Sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570687)

What a great idea!


Thanking you.

Your Government.

They do, sort of (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570760)

...not engines, but axles.

Many toll roads charge by the axle. So if you have three (ie, you're towing a trailer or you have a big truck) they charge you more.

Bummer (5, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570564)

Admit it, we Penguinistas are dissapointed :)

Good, less copyright violations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570566)

Good this means I risk a little bit less when I pirate their software on a multi-core processor.

Of course, the copyright threats have yet to deter me anyhow....

Re:Good, less copyright violations (5, Insightful)

lowe0 (136140) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570716)

If you hate MS' copyright, why not use software which doesn't impose such a restriction?

It's not like Bill Gates is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to install Windows. If a free alternative exists, then you have no excuse - you're just freeloading scum.

Re:Good, less copyright violations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570766)

here here!

Re:Good, less copyright violations (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570826)

here here!

*drops a ton of bricks at the specified location*

Re:Good, less copyright violations (1)

alw53 (702722) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570917)

Right, you are welcome to use products produced by Digital Research, Netscape, Burst, SPX, Borland, or Caldera.

Oh, wait...

Who cares? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570574)

Why would you want to run the crappiest OS in the world on a multi-core processor based system anyway. That's like loading DOS on a P4!

Re:Who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570668)

You insensitive clod, I run dos on a P4!

Frankly (-1, Troll)

loyalsonofrutgers (736778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570575)

I'm surprised that Microsoft doesn't try charging you based on how many transistors the chip has. It makes as much sense as charging per core or CPU. Microsoft: taxing the march of progress for over 20 years.

Re:Frankly (2, Funny)

BarryNorton (778694) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570679)

Indeed. Microsoft invented this. The good thing about mainframes was no matter how powerful the machine the cost for software was the same...

Re:Frankly (2, Informative)

he who meows (766234) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570764)

Uhm, you do realize that IBM, Sun, SGI, pretty much every big unix vendor will also scale OS costs per CPU? I know its fun to knock microsoft, but at least be rational about it.

Stupid question (2)

nebaz (453974) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570577)

What is a multi core processor?

Re:Stupid question (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570630)

In a quick nutshell.

Essentially a chip with more than 1 CPU on it.

Instead of having a dual CPU with 2 fully seperate Xeons (for example), you now (in 1-2 years) will have a single Xeon that looks to the OS like 2 seperate CPUs.

The part of the CPU that contains the real logic is called the core, and the cache and interface stuff is well the non-core. So, they put the heart of 2 CPUs on a single chip and wrap 1 non-core cache & bus interconnect around it, and call it a dual-core CPU, or multi-core to be generic.

They make some changes in the bus interconnect to support this of course.

You'll see it in high end server chips at first and then it'll work its way down to the desktop. Business care about the per CPU licensing because that is usually how they pay for software.

Stupid answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570637)

It is a processor that has multiple cores!

Re:Stupid question (4, Informative)

rborek (563153) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570662)

A multicore processor is a processor with more than one processor core in a single die. So, an example of a multicore processor would be putting two Pentium 4 processor cores in the same processor die, thereby giving the operating system two processors to work with, instead of just one. This is roughly the same as having a dual-processor system, except that because the processor cores are side-by-side they can interact at processor speeds, rather than bus interconnect speeds. It's one method of creating faster computers without having to create new processors, or continually speed up the processor by increasing the frequency.

The Xeon processors will be the first Intel chips to use multicore processors, and will eventually make its way into mainstream chips.

Multi core processors, or multi processor cores? (3, Interesting)

tonsofpcs (687961) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570584)

So why don't I just take a bunch of processors, link them together, and claim it is all one processor with multiple cores, and force Microsoft to set its price down to the single processor price???

After all, a multi-core processor is really just multiple processors in one package, isn't it?

--
./Amiga/.

Re:Multi core processors, or multi processor cores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570690)

There will be something in the hardware that shows that it is a multi-core processor. Of course you can probably bypass this is override/hack it in the OS - but then this is about licensing, if you wanted to do that you might as well pirate a version which lets you use dual processors or whatever.

Re:Multi core processors, or multi processor cores (4, Informative)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570802)

With multicore, the CPUs are sharing a single memory bus. At the two-core level, this isn't too much of a performance hit, but by the time you hit four cores, you lose most of the benefit of that fourth core to the lack of memory bandwidth.

Intel's Xeon chips are running into this problem already. A single Xeon CPU has better memory performance than a single Opteron, but a four-way Opteron system, with a separate memory controller and RAM bank for each chip, blows away a four-way Xeon system, since the four Xeons have to share the memory controller and memory.

More evidence of the Microsoft monopoly... (0, Troll)

dtjohnson (102237) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570589)

...that they would even think they could charge more just because of improvements to underlying silicon architecture. An Athlon 64 3500+ provides performance equivalent to about $10,000 or so Intel 8086 logic chips and the 8086 chip *was* the chip that launched Microsoft. Since MS-DOS 1.0 sold for about $100, maybe we should all be paying $1,000,000 a copy to run MS-DOS 1.0 on the Athlon 64. Windows XP would cost more, of course.

Re:More evidence of the Microsoft monopoly... (2, Funny)

ctr2sprt (574731) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570641)

...What?

Re:More evidence of the Microsoft monopoly... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570681)

Have you tried running ms-dos 1.0 modern machine? Using 5.25inch drives i'm able to boot to dos 1.1 (now with graphics) but forget about HD access.

In related news (4, Funny)

thisissilly (676875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570599)

I heard that Linux will charge TWICE the current amount as much for Multicore GPL licenses. :)

Re:In related news (1)

HugeFatty (745805) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570820)

Yeah, but they'll also charge pi times as much, and 37 times as much, and 3i-4 times as much. In fact, all complex numbers, all at the same time! And it doesn't even matter how many cores you have. I don't know about you, but I'm worried ;-)

sort of like..? (-1, Offtopic)

jxyama (821091) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570601)

sort of like pr0n costs the same for softcore and hardcore? (let's not go into the number of cores in the pr0n, shall we?)

Thank God (4, Funny)

bigberk (547360) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570603)

Not charging per core, whew, thus reducing our enterprise's total [kernel.org] cost [freebsd.org] of [openbsd.org] operation [netbsd.org] !

Key MS quote shines light on thinking.... (4, Insightful)

Anubis333 (103791) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570610)

"...will base the pricing on the number of processors the operating system shows present in the machine"

Re:Key MS quote shines light on thinking.... (4, Insightful)

kubrick (27291) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570714)

Soon it might be like the RIAA and CD burners... "Well, you have a *very* fast processor, so we treat it as 32 processors".

FIRST POST! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570611)

Yeah! FIRST POST! I rule slashdot! W00T!!!

Re:FIRST POST! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570646)

Sweet jesus!

worst frost pist evaaaaaah.

WTF.

Wow (0, Offtopic)

twitter (104583) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570653)

Now if only more than one person could use a copy of Word at the same time. It's so underwhelming.

Perhaps they could reimburse everyone for all the time spent weeding out worms and viruses. Nah, that would make a "profit center" into a money loser as well as customer loser.

Awwww... (0, Troll)

neon-fx (777448) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570672)

Awwwww, thats mighty nice of them, must getting soft in their old age :P

.Not and windoze sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570689)

Do morons still use .Not and Windoze

WOW, unbelievable (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570696)

who should we thank for such favors...

and will they reverse the decision when multicore CPUs become more common?

Seems MS flip flopped a few times on Win XP service pack 2 eing available and enabled for people with pirate copies of that OS. I'm sure other changes can be found especially looking at the changes in licensing MS Office over the years.

Marketing Fluff (5, Interesting)

null etc. (524767) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570730)

I just ran the linked news article through my Marketing Cut-N-Paste Detector(TM), and have displayed the results below. All phrases in bold are determined to have been directly cut-n-paste from previous marketing articles.

...
Analysts have warned that software makers might license their server products at double the price for double the number of cores, but many have also indicated that software companies have little to gain from multicore price increases.

... Although some vendors have hinted they may charge more for software licensing on multicore processors, most have moved closer to Microsoft's announced stance, which seeks to maintain the status quo without charging more for multicores.

"Microsoft software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed per processor, not per core, for hardware that contains dual-core and multicore processors," the company said in a statement.

Microsoft said its multicore licensing decision is aimed at driving higher volume and better value with the advent of dual-core and multicore server processors from both AMD (NYSE: AMD) and Intel (Nasdaq: INTC) , which are expected in hardware beginning next year.

... "Our customers want to understand software costs as they evaluate the return on investment of new technologies, such as multicore processors," said Microsoft vice president of licensing and pricing Brent Callinicos in a statement.

... According to Gartner analyst Martin Reynolds, the fear has been that software vendors would double their prices for dual-core processor coverage, creating big cost jumps for enterprise customers. Gartner recommends customers attempt to negotiate software licenses that count a single-chip device as one processor, regardless of how many cores it carries.

While some vendors, including IBM (NYSE: IBM) and Oracle (Nasdaq: ORCL) , have signaled they might charge more in licensing for dual-core and multicore products, Microsoft confirmed what many analysts had predicted -- that the addition of processor cores was by no means an opportunity for software vendors.

Yankee Group senior analyst Laura DiDio told TechNewsWorld that Microsoft was making a proactive move to address the issue, but was also signaling to its customers that it is not a hardware vendor and could not lower software prices along with the dip in hardware costs that comes with the efficiency of multicore chips.

DiDio said that while customers might benefit from more efficient processors and interaction with the software, they will pay the same rate they've been paying to license Microsoft products with the new hardware.

"This multicore technology really illustrates the dichotomy between the rapid advancement of hardware capability, which is in turn making issues with how software companies license the technology," DiDio said.

[Editor's note: I admit that the previous three paragraphs come from an alternate universe in which everyone speaks marketing lingo, and understands each other.]

Referring to the complexity of per-processor licensing, even without the addition of dual-core technology, DiDio said software makers do not want to be seen as raising their prices, for fear of losing customers.

Nevertheless, software vendors have proceeded cautiously on the core question, with rivals IBM, Oracle, Sun, Microsoft and others waiting to see how the others approach the issue, partly to learn what works and partly to have the opportunity to counter, according to DiDio.

She said IBM is in a different situation since it makes money not only from software and services but also from hardware.

I'm sure this will help some people... (1)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570737)

Of course, with every version of RH 7.3, 8, 9... or FC1 or 2, I've never had to pay anyone for any number of CPU's I use.

Maybe since M$ can't lower their pride enough to lower their prices, not adding an extra fee is supposed to make them look better?

I can only wonder how Oracle is going to re-act to my 4-way, dual core RH ES 3 server... somehow I see the costs increasing...

Re:I'm sure this will help some people... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10570852)

Customer: "Hey, I'll give you $1000 for that!"

MS: "F- that, give me $200."

Now THAT would be stupid.

This just in... (3, Funny)

Anita Coney (648748) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570776)

General Motors has decided to charge the same price whether you drive on two or four lane highways.

in other news... (3, Funny)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570809)

in other news, Microsoft is switching to a per-transistor licensing scheme.

Inconsistency (1)

frovingslosh (582462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570828)

What's strange about this announcement is the inconsistency in the policy. They do charge for multiple licenses when there are multiple processors in a single server. What they have announced is that if Intel or AMD put two (or more) CPU cores in one chip, a server that uses one of those chips will only need a single license. However, if I take multiple CPU's and imbed them in epoxy and make a server out of it, and call it the "frovingslosh processor", they would want to charge me or my customers multiple licenses based on the number of CPU's in that. Where is that consistency in that? Is it even legal? (OK, I know Microsoft is above the law, but would it be legal for anyone else?)

A sigh of relief... (5, Funny)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570840)

A sigh of relief rose from the collective pirates of the world, who realized they would not have to spend the extra half-hour hacking Microsoft OS activation for machines with multi-core processors and could instead catch a Simpsons rerun.

Hmmm (1, Insightful)

SnapperHead (178050) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570912)

Microsoft said it won't charge for dual core ... BUT they never said it would ACTUALLY use both cores ....

... then again, how many M$ products can you name that DO work ? :)

In other news today (0)

digitalgimpus (468277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10570925)

Microsoft Announced they will start charging per Level 1 Cache bank.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>