I am looking at and trying to figure out the new Microsoft software [s]scam[/s] upgrades for my company.

What is up with this anyway and where did it come from? I hadn't heard didley about it.

Guess I need to reasearch more, but thought someone on here could tell me better than their damn website does. How long is it good for, does is it cover software or is it license's only? Either way it looks like a way to squeeze money out of businesses both short and long term.

Later

IAJack

I am talking about the Software Assurance and Upgrade Advantage Licensing plans.

Confusing isn't it!?!?

From what I have tried to understand.... RUN, run away as fast as you can.

It truly a nasty piece of contract that will end up costing a company mega bucks. This is their first step in the process of "on demand software" where every computer will need access to the net, and you load and pay for what you use. Part of the .Net strategy

I am reading about several companies that are in the process of looking at alternatives. *inux with office substitutes (open source or pay).

With the legal rulings (current and possible), this is Bill's method of trying to keep his current income consistant. Like he needs more cash.

We just got a bill for $10,500 for that for 20 PC's.  I wanted to toss the invoice, but my boss is terrified of the BSA after they carted-off the computers owned by a company his brother worked for.  He paid the invoice last week.  With that $10,500, I could have put together replacement machines with Linux (we keep our old monitors), and given the ones with Windows NT and Office to them.  Instead, he caved under the pressure.z

It was widely publicized in the news and trade mags about 9 months ago.

Let's see if I can remember the details:

Neither plan covered licensing, only support and upgrades. It assumed (read - REQUIRED) that all software had to be properly licensed before you could take advantage of the plans.

Software assurance allowed for free fixes for problems.

Upgrade Advantage provided for slightly cheaper upgrades to new versions for a defined period of time.

This all occurred when Office & Windows 2000, XP, 98 where all released in a short period of time. So MS decided to change its licensing/support option for the "Level" program they used to have. It was pretty confusing.

We had about 50 pc and 3 servers running various versions of Windows, along with Exchange, Office and a few other things. If I had gone along with MS and purchased these items it would have cost over $60,000 - and it would not have bought us anything.

As far as the BSA is concerned, there are no licensing issues addressed by either of these agreements. The BSA is only concerned that you have licenses for the software you have installed and not the upgrade/maint. agreements that you have for the software.

For the small (under 200 PC) companies, these services don't provide any benefit. They are designed more for the large organization that require all PC run exactly the same version Operating System or Office Suite. (Or a company that is going to upgrade all existing PCs).

If your company is happy with what they are running, and will perform upgrades on a case-by-case basis, it wasn't much of a benefit financially.

I could have some of the details confused, but from what I remember, this was the gist of it...just a $$$ making ploy by MS.

there you go. any further questions?

i dont mind bill being rich, and i dont mind bill controlling corporate IT or the internet. i [b]do[/b] have a problem with bill controlling my desktop. i wish he'd spend some of that money getting therapy for his control issues.

He is just trying to do what he feels will bring the largest return to his stockholders.  That may or may not be consistent with what is best for other people/companies.

Personally, I am reminded of a quote from [u]Star Wars[/u], Leia to Tarkin:  "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Support does cost money.  But when there are fixes in upgrades to problems in current versions which are not available without buying the new version, that is taking advantage of the consumer.  For instance, there were all kinds of networking issues with windows ME.  To correct the issues, you need to purchase 2000 or XP and upgrade because microsoft has chosen not to fix the networking code in ME.  The original product was broken, and to fix the problem you are required to purchase the new product?!?! This would be totally unacceptable in any other business, but has become the norm for software companies.

Something needs to be done.  Almost every product we purchase today would still be unreleased beta code if it was being developed 10 years ago.  Now they just release broken software, say they'll fix it later and then proceed to move development to a new product and screw over the consumers.

IMHO it's not that Microsoft is the better buy, it's that it is the "safe choice" -- just like the old saying, "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."  It's also the standard choice, so companies that want to exchange documents with other companies go with it for compatibility.

Many companies don't even look at alternatives because of these issues, even though they could save a bundle by going with Linux/StarOffice.

What gunman0 said is totally true and it's not just MS pulling the "upgrade" con. Commonly, the new version will have the fixes you need, as well as new features you don't need, with new bugs that came along with the new features. You can never win!

Why does the public put up with this crap? Why does everyone resign himself to being an unwilling beta tester? It's quite simple.

In the old DOS and Windows 3.x days, software vendors would blame their own problems on the OS. And they could get away with it because the OS was crap. With Windows locking up at start-up, before any visible applications are loaded, it was easy for people to believe the OS was the problem. So, when ever something went wrong, it was DOS or Windows, not the application.

Since everyone was blaming the OS, it was easy for software vendors to release beta code on the public. If something went wrong, invariably they would blame the OS. And who would know the difference? I mean, the OS really was crap! But now with Windows 2000, which by all definitions is very solid, it's more difficult to blame the OS.

I don't know how much longer this blame game can continue. Eventually people will get wise and go after the appropriate parties.