[AccessD] New SQL Server license scheme is RADICALLLY more expensive

 > I doubt seriously that the licensing for a<50 person corp is NOT negotiable. MSFT is just testing 
the waters with that kind of licensing fee IMHO.

I would guess so.  The problem is that once you dive in to the water you are in for the long haul.

Free?
Not??

I can run MySQL on Windows 2008 and have a full on server with most of the bells and whistles.  the 
cost is in coming up to speed in a new environment, but once done then it is very low cost.

Or I can run MSSQL.  They were already balking (unable to afford really) the $8K or so for the SQL 
Server Standard Edition.

But we are about to move a full system, ~200 tables to something.  Moving that big a database  is 
going to be time consuming and expensive just in migration costs and testing.

Do I move it to SQL Server 2008 Express?  That doesn't seem a good bet.  Do I move to SQl Server 
2008 Standard and get locked in only to have MS really whack them around in the 2011 license costs? 
  Or do I make the break and just go MySQL (or something else)?

I am recommending that we just make a clean break right now.

John W. Colby
Colby Consulting

Reality is what refuses to go away
when you do not believe in it

On 11/14/2011 10:22 PM, Mark Simms wrote:
> John - I really hear this stuff and wonder if MSFT isn't brain-dead sometimes
> ;)
> I doubt seriously that the licensing for a<50 person corp is NOT negotiable.
> MSFT is just testing the waters with that kind of licensing fee IMHO.
>
>> I want to discuss this.  My client just brought up an 8 core AMD server
>> with 16 gigs of ram, just in
>> time to hear about MS deciding that $8K / core is a fair license price.
>> I don't think that $64K
>> for a CPU license is at all fair.
>
>