Windows Server 2016 Pricing
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
I think that the biggest issue here is that there are loads of decisions that sound unlikely to make sense and all depend on one another. We can't really get a good picture without knowing the whole picture. We are picking apart portions that seem crazy, but they might not be. Likely they are, but we cant really know. We don't have enough info.
But the suspected problem is that the IT manager has an emotional tie to VMware and is funneling them money (not suggesting a kickback, just that he wants to support a vendor that he likes, it's a normal emotional response) and is using this "going to give them money no matter what" opinion to build all other decisions off of. He didn't, we assume, consider lower cost Starwind options instead of VSAN, VSAN drove his sizing, sizing drove his licensing, and so on. If we pull out the VMware linchpin, we are guessing that the rest all falls apart. But we can't be sure until we know all of the factors.
A fair assessment.
It feels like we're just at the end of a very long chain of decisions, almost like reaching terminal velocity, that looking back we're at the only place we could have ended up based on our original trajectory. And without getting too detailed, I can think of a lot of reasons why A led to B led to C.
I can see it in the descriptions. Someone likely made a firm decision in a vacuum while ignoring the fact that their decision was much, much more widespread. For example, they chose ProductA thinking "no big deal, it's just one little product." They ignored the fact that it required SQL Server, AD, only runs on Windows 2003, needs Windows clients, doesn't have support, isn't supportable, isn't secure, etc. They make it sound like "I only chose ProductA", but in reality they were given the power to define the entire IT infrastructure.
This is why holistic IT decision making is absolutely critical. Someone has to look at the big picture when decisions are being made and make sure that little decisions aren't made without someone thinking through would it really means or to make sure that someone can't use a small decision making power to "social engineer" an environment of their choosing that doesn't fit the needs of the organization.
In this case, it might be as simple as the VMware mandate. Or maybe it is the Windows apps. Or both. It's often easy to find these problem apps because they are mandates, rather than exposed decisions. Instead of an open conversation about what's the best option, they are a piece that is "unquestionable". Look for these, they are often done as a means to hide chain reaction design decisions that someone wants to enact without a reason to justify them.
Or it can be an accident of someone that doesn't understand the necessities of planning.
This. All of this. Yes.
But put yourself in my shoes. You have the ability to advise and to some degree influence, but in no way control these mandates. It is easy for someone to say "Oh, you guys should be doing X, Y and Z", but that doesn't actually make such changes possible.
I feel like I have to make the best of the situation I am in.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Again, I don't think it breaks the camel's back at all. We can afford it if there was justifiable value in this version. But why spend the extra money if there's no return? Anyway, we've covered that aspect well enough.
If that's the only question of consequence for now - then starting with the latest and greatest considering how infrequently you update (looking at those 2003 machines) shows you'll just have that much longer on the support tree. Even if we assume you installed the 2003 servers in 2008, right before 2008 was released, that still makes them 8 years old.
Definitely true... And a factor on my mind. Part of me is assuming that MS will somehow force everyone to the cloud by then though
I don't see that happening. If it did, people would just be forced to move to another option so they can continue to manage their own stuff.
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Again, I don't think it breaks the camel's back at all. We can afford it if there was justifiable value in this version. But why spend the extra money if there's no return? Anyway, we've covered that aspect well enough.
If that's the only question of consequence for now - then starting with the latest and greatest considering how infrequently you update (looking at those 2003 machines) shows you'll just have that much longer on the support tree. Even if we assume you installed the 2003 servers in 2008, right before 2008 was released, that still makes them 8 years old.
This is really how I think we all see it. For the moment, it's just staying back two years. But that's how falling behind starts. It's the little things. But if 2016 isn't worth it, what about 2016 R2, which will have a bigger migration hump to make. Then 2018 will be a "different world" and too much work. Then 2018 R2 will be ignored. Then 2020 is out and... no one is evaluating the old systems any longer, they are those machines everyone just hopes keep working. And suddenly it's the 2003 scenario and no one is sure if updating is an option any longer.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Again, I don't think it breaks the camel's back at all. We can afford it if there was justifiable value in this version. But why spend the extra money if there's no return? Anyway, we've covered that aspect well enough.
If that's the only question of consequence for now - then starting with the latest and greatest considering how infrequently you update (looking at those 2003 machines) shows you'll just have that much longer on the support tree. Even if we assume you installed the 2003 servers in 2008, right before 2008 was released, that still makes them 8 years old.
This is really how I think we all see it. For the moment, it's just staying back two years. But that's how falling behind starts. It's the little things. But if 2016 isn't worth it, what about 2016 R2, which will have a bigger migration hump to make. Then 2018 will be a "different world" and too much work. Then 2018 R2 will be ignored. Then 2020 is out and... no one is evaluating the old systems any longer, they are those machines everyone just hopes keep working. And suddenly it's the 2003 scenario and no one is sure if updating is an option any longer.
This reads like the simplified Wikipedia history of our IT department
-
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Again, I don't think it breaks the camel's back at all. We can afford it if there was justifiable value in this version. But why spend the extra money if there's no return? Anyway, we've covered that aspect well enough.
If that's the only question of consequence for now - then starting with the latest and greatest considering how infrequently you update (looking at those 2003 machines) shows you'll just have that much longer on the support tree. Even if we assume you installed the 2003 servers in 2008, right before 2008 was released, that still makes them 8 years old.
Definitely true... And a factor on my mind. Part of me is assuming that MS will somehow force everyone to the cloud by then though
I don't see that happening. If it did, people would just be forced to move to another option so they can continue to manage their own stuff.
I agree, essentially impossible. There is no means of forcing people to the cloud as long as they can run on old systems. If 2003 runs today, 2012 R2 will run in 2023 for sure. And 2030 isn't crazy. Maybe at that point, MS won't offer an on premises option. But by that point, MS might not even be around!
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@Dashrender said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Again, I don't think it breaks the camel's back at all. We can afford it if there was justifiable value in this version. But why spend the extra money if there's no return? Anyway, we've covered that aspect well enough.
If that's the only question of consequence for now - then starting with the latest and greatest considering how infrequently you update (looking at those 2003 machines) shows you'll just have that much longer on the support tree. Even if we assume you installed the 2003 servers in 2008, right before 2008 was released, that still makes them 8 years old.
Definitely true... And a factor on my mind. Part of me is assuming that MS will somehow force everyone to the cloud by then though
I don't see that happening. If it did, people would just be forced to move to another option so they can continue to manage their own stuff.
I agree, essentially impossible. There is no means of forcing people to the cloud as long as they can run on old systems. If 2003 runs today, 2012 R2 will run in 2023 for sure. And 2030 isn't crazy. Maybe at that point, MS won't offer an on premises option. But by that point, MS might not even be around!
(I was joking about the forced cloud migration btw)
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
I think that the biggest issue here is that there are loads of decisions that sound unlikely to make sense and all depend on one another. We can't really get a good picture without knowing the whole picture. We are picking apart portions that seem crazy, but they might not be. Likely they are, but we cant really know. We don't have enough info.
But the suspected problem is that the IT manager has an emotional tie to VMware and is funneling them money (not suggesting a kickback, just that he wants to support a vendor that he likes, it's a normal emotional response) and is using this "going to give them money no matter what" opinion to build all other decisions off of. He didn't, we assume, consider lower cost Starwind options instead of VSAN, VSAN drove his sizing, sizing drove his licensing, and so on. If we pull out the VMware linchpin, we are guessing that the rest all falls apart. But we can't be sure until we know all of the factors.
A fair assessment.
It feels like we're just at the end of a very long chain of decisions, almost like reaching terminal velocity, that looking back we're at the only place we could have ended up based on our original trajectory. And without getting too detailed, I can think of a lot of reasons why A led to B led to C.
I can see it in the descriptions. Someone likely made a firm decision in a vacuum while ignoring the fact that their decision was much, much more widespread. For example, they chose ProductA thinking "no big deal, it's just one little product." They ignored the fact that it required SQL Server, AD, only runs on Windows 2003, needs Windows clients, doesn't have support, isn't supportable, isn't secure, etc. They make it sound like "I only chose ProductA", but in reality they were given the power to define the entire IT infrastructure.
This is why holistic IT decision making is absolutely critical. Someone has to look at the big picture when decisions are being made and make sure that little decisions aren't made without someone thinking through would it really means or to make sure that someone can't use a small decision making power to "social engineer" an environment of their choosing that doesn't fit the needs of the organization.
In this case, it might be as simple as the VMware mandate. Or maybe it is the Windows apps. Or both. It's often easy to find these problem apps because they are mandates, rather than exposed decisions. Instead of an open conversation about what's the best option, they are a piece that is "unquestionable". Look for these, they are often done as a means to hide chain reaction design decisions that someone wants to enact without a reason to justify them.
Or it can be an accident of someone that doesn't understand the necessities of planning.
This. All of this. Yes.
But put yourself in my shoes. You have the ability to advise and to some degree influence, but in no way control these mandates. It is easy for someone to say "Oh, you guys should be doing X, Y and Z", but that doesn't actually make such changes possible.
I feel like I have to make the best of the situation I am in.
You do. But doing that requires at least knowing what could have been done, what should have been done, how and when it would have made sense to do it, who and why made the decisions that are there, etc. It's not that by knowing that you suddenly change everything. It's that knowing is half the battle and gives you the tools to recognize more bad decisions coming, more technical debt, points of risk, etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
But by that point, MS might not even be around!
And here you are telling me to switch to Hyper-V!!
-
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
-
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
It's all good, seriously I'm not offended or anything
We have looked at hosted, but the cost is quite high. Again, understanding that we buy Exchange and ride it until the cows come home, a one-and-done capex is a lot easier to swallow then a not-insignificant opex. But again, that is my manager's current "style".
Google Apps came in and pitched a hosted email solution that looked great to me, but wasn't much cheaper (first year discounts aside). My manager doesn't think we can sell anything but Outlook to the organization though... Sigh.
Me, I actually logged into MangoLassi today to look for reviews of Zimbra. Trying to think outside of the box and save some money on that front.. Open source or more affordable 3rd party mail solutions. In fact my original goal this morning was to look for ways in general to get away from a Windows environment (Honest -- I'll show my Google search history!).
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We have looked at hosted, but the cost is quite high.
Do Government entities get a discount? I know non-profits get it for free.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We have looked at hosted, but the cost is quite high.
Do Government entities get a discount? I know non-profits get it for free.
Not like you'd think. I really really wish that were the case. There might be a marginal discount but it's still not enough to make it viable, at least not in line with our current situation.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Me, I actually logged into MangoLassi today to look for reviews of Zimbra. Trying to think outside of the box and save some money on that front.. Open source or more affordable 3rd party mail solutions. In fact my original goal this morning was to look for ways in general to get away from a Windows environment
Zimbra is a great option for on-premises email systems. We ran it for years. Easy to manage, free. It's very nice.
If you are willing to pay, Axigen is worth considering too. Full support, runs on Linux as well, the developers are here in the community, much less cost than Windows.
There is also MDaemon, but that runs on Windows. Much lower cost than Exchange.
All of these have Outlook connection options, none are 100% free for that feature.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@scottalanmiller said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We have looked at hosted, but the cost is quite high.
Do Government entities get a discount? I know non-profits get it for free.
Not like you'd think. I really really wish that were the case. There might be a marginal discount but it's still not enough to make it viable, at least not in line with our current situation.
I didn't expect much, so maybe I have a good picture. Full price is $4/user. Non-profit price is free. I'd guess government was around $3.50.
-
We also need full archival for records retention. We currently do it on-site with an appliance from Jatheon. That bumps us into a higher bracket for hosted Exchange I believe.
-
@crustachio said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
We also need full archival for records retention. We currently do it on-site with an appliance from Jatheon. That bumps us into a higher bracket for hosted Exchange I believe.
It adds a cost, not necessarily a different bracket. Can be done through a third party.
-
@coliver said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Out of curiosity, and not trying to rub any more salt, what's the reasoning behind having exchange on-site still?
As a municipality, if the police department is on this server, that is the reason.
Exchange Online is not legally allowed for any organization that is required to meet ... and my mind just blanked on what the acronym is for police investigation chain of evidence compliance.
-
Does anyone have a stupid simple breakdown of pricing? I'm still confuzzled on how this per core stuff works... Currently I work for an MS partner so this isn't something I've had to worry about for quite some time...
-
@zuphzuph said in Windows Server 2016 Pricing:
Does anyone have a stupid simple breakdown of pricing? I'm still confuzzled on how this per core stuff works... Currently I work for an MS partner so this isn't something I've had to worry about for quite some time...
Normally working for a partner means you deal with it hundreds of times more than normal companies, rather than less.
-
@zuphzuph Basically you have to license both CPUs and cores. Base CPU licensing comes with sixteen cores in the pack. If you need more cores than that includes, you buy them extra on top.
