Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The thing is that not all companies need everything vSphere does. I actually fully expect my academic institution to abandon vSphere in favor of Hyper-V system wide due to pretty much unbeatable Microsoft Site licensing. Currently we are paying $130k a year system wide to VMware (which isn't all that much, and that's the old licensing though I don't think the changes would affect us). In our environment there's nothing we need that Hyper-V doesn't do, and the Microsoft licensing is an order of magnitude lower because unlike VMware they do offer deep deep discounts for academia.Fortune 500 companies aren't running to Hyper-V because H-V can't do 1/3 of what they need.
I am trying to look at this with an objective and rational mind. What you are saying is tht VMware changed licensing and most people wouldn't be affected. However, most people didn't run the numbers and simply got upset. Because of that VMware changed its mind on licensing.They didn't expect such a large backlash when people didn't run the numbers honestly on their environment so they backed off a bit to calm people down.
Customers were upset, the PR failcascade was all over the blogs and that's what made otherwise content VMware customers actively look for alternatives. That's where the real damage is. If you have a happy customer he or she will not look around for other stuff, but once you have an upset customer you are in the danger zone because what if they realize that they don't actually need you? Angry customers also cause a lot more fuzz than happy ones out there on the internet and damage control can quickly become problematic.
VMware has academic discounts, and government discounts.The thing is that not all companies need everything vSphere does. I actually fully expect my academic institution to abandon vSphere in favor of Hyper-V system wide due to pretty much unbeatable Microsoft Site licensing. Currently we are paying $130k a year system wide to VMware (which isn't all that much, and that's the old licensing though I don't think the changes would affect us). In our environment there's nothing we need that Hyper-V doesn't do, and the Microsoft licensing is an order of magnitude lower because unlike VMware they do offer deep deep discounts for academia.
Because people have started relying on the features, seriously.Likewise there are bound to be a lot of other companies who simply don't use most of what vSphere provides. Yes, it's cool that the feature is there but if you don't need it then why pay for it if the alternative does what you need it to do and comes at substantially lower prices.
Pretty much - It's a company run by engineers and has a very very large and growing social media branch who listens to what people say (as well as a rapidly growing college/academic branch to interface with students and spread the love at that level).I am trying to look at this with an objective and rational mind. What you are saying is tht VMware changed licensing and most people wouldn't be affected. However, most people didn't run the numbers and simply got upset. Because of that VMware changed its mind on licensing.
Sure you do. If your goal is to keep customers happy, you make a change that is a compromise. The new licensing might not make a difference now, but in the future people will keep growing and it will eventually require more licenses.Sorry, but rationally that makes little sense if any at all. You don't go through with a business plan and then change your mind just because some uneducated consumers are upset. If anything you educate them which you can do cheaply by email since VMware has all of our info.
Customers were upset, the PR failcascade was all over the blogs and that's what made otherwise content VMware customers actively look for alternatives. That's where the real damage is. If you have a happy customer he or she will not look around for other stuff, but once you have an upset customer you are in the danger zone because what if they realize that they don't actually need you? Angry customers also cause a lot more fuzz than happy ones out there on the internet and damage control can quickly become problematic.
I didn't say that they don't, I did say that Microsoft's discounts are significantly deeper, up to 90% on stuff that you can use in production because they can and they want that market so that college grads are exposed to the software as they are going through college. The server side gets bundled into a site license deal where the cost per server is substantially lower than the cost of electricity to keep it powered on.VMware has academic discounts, and government discounts.
lopo, I know your heart is in the right place on this one but VMware is run by shareholders and Wall Street. It is inevitable that the pressure to meet forecasts trickles down. VMware's stock price dropped nearly 5% on the announcement of the new licensing scheme, it's currently 10% down from where it was the day before the new licensing was announced and that's amid 35% growth posted in Q1 quarterly results. I am no expert, this could be completely unrelated, but I am just saying that in a publicly traded company engineers rarely have the last word. The originally proposed licensing turned out to be damaging to the company's value and to the customer's perception of the company. In simpler words; It was a fuck up. Now they patched it.Pretty much - It's a company run by engineers
The, what should be obvious, difference between MS and VMware is that MS makes money off of the VMs as well, not just the Hypervisor, thus it only makes sense that they can discount the hypervisor substantially since you will be buying the OS that will run all the VMs from MS as well.What I find absolutely amazing is that they expect MS to continue this super cheap H-V licensing policy forever. Let's play the "what if" game. Do you think that if MS gets to 75% marketshare with H-V their licensing won't change? If they let me buy a single Datacenter license and virtualize 50 servers on a box you don't think that's going to give at some point? REALLY?!
The, what should be obvious, difference between MS and VMware is that MS makes money off of the VMs as well, not just the Hypervisor, thus it only makes sense that they can discount the hypervisor substantially since you will be buying the OS that will run all the VMs from MS as well.
No need to get all riled up.
I would expect MS to change the licensing of either Hyper-V and/or Datacenter edition at some point.
heh. I still can't comment it seems. Coming soon!
Out of curiosity what is the vram limit for ESXi 4.1?
4.1 ESXi Free while it has no vRam limit, does have a pRam limit of 256GB as well as the following;There is no limit from a licensing perspective. The amount of memory you can allocate to a single guest is 256gb.
I wasn't going to post until I saw others.
If I outgrow my Essentials Plus environment can I trade up? Or I could use it for the secondary site...As of right now all entitlements are soft limits. You can exceed, you'll just get an alert in vCenter.
For ESXi free, is the 32GB physical limit per socket (like the 8GB limit was supposed to be) or per hypervisor? Example: if I have a dual-CPU system do I get support for 32GB or 64GB physical ram?
How do you qualify for this program (assuming you want to provide cloud services using vmware of course)?