back to article Windows Server 2019 coming next year and the price is going up

Microsoft has released more information about the new version of Windows Server, including a time-frame for release and a warning on prices. "It is highly likely we will increase pricing for Windows Server Client Access Licensing (CAL). We will provide more details when available," Redmond warned. Wes Miller, research VP with …

  1. J. R. Hartley

    Oh goodie!

    I wonder which exciting new way they're going to fuck this up.

    1. Danny 14

      Re: Oh goodie!

      2016 had a few decent improvements in it. we went from 2008r2 to 2012r2 and further 2016 as we liked the look of stretch clustering. Turns out it was really easy to do and works well in our environment.

      azure is useless for us though as our internet is not up to snuff.

      1. TheVogon

        Re: Oh goodie!

        "azure is useless for us though as our internet is not up to snuff."

        Cheap fast internet is available.

        Or better still: https://www.megaport.com/

  2. K
    Trollface

    The price is going up..

    Well got to give it to M$, they remain consistent..

    I was going to write a sarcastic comment, but given the number of price hikes in recent year.. I've been bled dry of these!

    1. a_yank_lurker

      Re: The price is going up..

      Vampires are less blood thirsty.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The price is going up..

      "but given the number of price hikes in recent year.. I've been bled dry of these!"

      Well they are in business to make money, and you do get more and better features with each release. And scalability and stability are good too. You can do more with less. I havnt seen in Windows Server bluescreen while running in years. Although after installing updates is another matter! The one big thing they need to catch up with Linux on is reboots for updates.

      1. BinkyTheMagicPaperclip

        Re: The price is going up..

        You do understand that new features are necessary to sell product? They're a baseline for the sale, any price increase has to provide something truly notable. Stability should also be a given.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The price is going up..

        But why increase prices?

        The development of last years features are already paid for with last years licenses. They're done.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The price is going up..

          >>The development of last years features are already paid for with last years licenses.

          But we are talking about this years features.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The price is going up..

        "You can do more with less."

        Did you really just say that in the context of a Microsoft operating system?

        From: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-server/get-started/system-requirements

        Minimum (Disk): 32 GB

        "Be aware that 32 GB should be considered an absolute minimum value for successful installation."

        Windows 2000 IMO was the peak of what a (MS) OS should contain, from there it should have been UI and stability improvements only with everything else (IIS, .NET etc.) bolted on as needed. If they had done that, they'd probably still have sane requirements: for Win2k server: 2 GB hard disk with a minimum of 650 MB of free space. And just for modern comparison, my Linux VM OS disks are all 8GB, with the OS using ~1.5-3GB.

        I honestly can't begin to imagine what in an OS requires 32GB of storage but I very much expect this requirement to be raised in Server 2019.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The price is going up..

          ""Be aware that 32 GB should be considered an absolute minimum value for successful installation."

          Are you running production on Raspberries then? Although it states 32GB required the actual minimal OS install size is 2GB.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The price is going up..

        "You can do more with less."

        That was the marketing phrase for Windows Server 2003. In reality it translates into doing the same with more.

        Example: I need to update the same finance app server we've been running for a decade on Windows Server. The app hasn't changed. Win Server now costs more and takes up more space.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The price is going up..

          "Win Server now costs more and takes up more space."

          It can for instance now deduplicate your disk storage, and / or run Storage Spaces Direct as a VSAN saving you money.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: The price is going up..

            "It can for instance now deduplicate your disk storage, and / or run Storage Spaces Direct as a VSAN saving you money."

            And how does that help me when deploying a Windows Server VM (that I've had to cough up for every physical host CPU core for too, not just the vCPU allocation) that runs something like an app for the finance team? Infrastructure is irrelevant to this layer and I'm still failing to see the value.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: The price is going up..

              "And how does that help me when deploying a Windows Server VM (that I've had to cough up for every physical host CPU core for too, not just the vCPU allocation"

              Not sure what you are talking about, but on the hypervisor side Hyper-V Server is free. Completely free. No Windows required. So you only need to pay for VMM if you need it. Third party management tools are also available.

              For Windows Server VM licensing, the normal method is to license Datacentre Server on the underlying hardware which then allows unlimited Windows VMs regardless of vCPUs used.

  3. TVU

    "Windows Server 2019 coming next year and the price is going up"

    ...cue more enterprises switching to RHEL/CentOS, SLES and Ubuntu.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "...cue more enterprises switching to RHEL/CentOS, SLES and Ubuntu."

      Well if cost is your driver, RHEL at least costs a lot more to license in most cases than the equivalent Windows Server!

      1. gerdesj Silver badge
        Alien

        "RHEL at least costs a lot more to license in most cases than the equivalent Windows Server!"

        That's nice AC! I'm sure it does but thankfully I have choice and I choose to exercise it. I run up Ubuntu LTS (Xenial for now) like they are going out of fashion for servers and use Arch for workstations and Arch and Gentoo for personal use. Not one - just to re-iterate - not one of those (and there are around 300 across the country that I look after) has skipped a beat that I didn't cause in some way.

        I also look after quite a few other systems and I can't be so charitable about them. Recently Win 2008R2 and Win7 machines had wifi and ether snags (for VMs) after the latest batch of Windows Updates (funnily enough we'd already documented the fix years ago, nice to see it again). I'm also not close to being mentally scarred (but pissed off) by a recent AV n firewall etc upgrade for a customer on a system I've been a sysadmin for a time range that is near to decades - not just years.

        Windows - you can stick it u *** bbbzzzt ***

        1. slartyfartbast

          Nice to see you comparing apples and oranges there - Xenial released this year and both those versions of windows released in 2009.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Well if cost is your driver..."

        Not so much just cost, but TCO. Sure there are warts on both sides but the factors favouring Linux include better package and patch management and uptime, easier deployment and configuration management and better future-proofing (i.e. it's easier to port an app between distros than it is between Windows and 'nix). And much, much easier license management. As in we don't need to, compared with the compliance minefield that is the MS licensing structure. Don't get me started on CALs.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Not so much just cost, but TCO."

          Outside of web scale internet services Window Server usually comes off cheaper in various studies. Depends on the use case anyway.

          "the factors favouring Linux include better package and patch management and uptime"

          Agreed for uptime due to fewer reboots, but patch and package management is much more flexible /. powerful on Windows Server. For instance application streaming / click to install.

          "easier deployment and configuration management "

          Disagree - Windows Server is miles ahead on that front. Everything is much easier to template, lock down and deploy and remotely control policy on - with no scripting or editing of text files required.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            patch and package management is much more flexible /. powerful on Windows Server

            Compared to what? A wheelie bin?

            Have you even used Windows Server??

            with no scripting or editing of text files required.

            That's a flaw!

            You sound like a sales-person turning all the limitations into positives like that.

            I use Windows Server every day, and it's nothing like how you paint it. I'm not sure who you're trying to convince.

            'Server may be great for the low-level admins, but for anything beyond the simple use cases it fails and just causes more frustration and googling.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "with no scripting or editing of text files required.

              That's a flaw!"

              Nope you can choose to do it all via Powershell if you want. Which as has been covered previously by Harmony and others here is a significantly more powerful, flexible and secure scripting option than say Bash.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Original AC here.

            "Outside of web scale internet services Window Server usually comes off cheaper in various studies. Depends on the use case anyway."

            Studies? I'm not talking about theoretical stuff here, nor magazine ads or vendor-sponsored studies. I speak from my own experience working in an environment of thousands of hosts, Linux and Windows. Linux actually saves a true fortune overall and it doesn't go unnoticed by the accounting team.

            "For instance application streaming / click to install."

            We don't click anything on servers. If you need to interactively log into a server to set it up then you are doing it wrong. And when it comes to writing templates and scripts for automated app installation, Linux wins hands-down.

            "Disagree - Windows Server is miles ahead on that front. Everything is much easier to template, lock down and deploy and remotely control policy on - with no scripting or editing of text files required."

            If you have people deploying servers who don't know how to script then it's time to re-hire. And from someone who preaches all the benefits of PowerShell, you are now saying that no scripting is an advantage? I seriously don't think you have any working knowledge of Linux and the tools available, let alone at any sort of scale.

            I also notice you have nothing to refute the ridiculous licensing. How does MS justify that?

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "We don't click anything on servers"

              Click to install is an application deployment and streaming technology. Clicking is optional. You can script or command line it.

              "If you have people deploying servers who don't know how to script then it's time to re-hire"

              You dont need to know scripting to do that with Windows Server. Its miles ahead of Linux for ease of use and capability in that space. See for instance:

              https://www.ntweekly.com/2016/11/24/configure-windows-deployment-services-on-windows-server-2106/

          3. P. Lee

            >>with no scripting or editing of text files required.

            >That's a flaw!

            It's also not true of windows in general any more. There are plenty of things which must be done with scripts, in adfs and exchange for example.

            Sure windows is easy to do basic things if skills are in short supply, but if that's your problem, maybe get a mac?

            Price hikes have two purposes:

            1. Hide/negate the downturn in demand for ms products

            2. Drive users to azure.

            Oh the joys of lock-in.

            Linux and bsd make ms and all its unpleasantness irrelevant to me except as as source of amusement.

            Teams- hahaha!

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              >Price hikes have two purposes:

              >1. Hide/negate the downturn in demand for ms products

              Any evidence for such a downturn? The last figures I saw show Microsoft still growing cloud and server market share and ~ static on circa 85% of desktops / laptops?

          4. Paul

            The problem with using a GUI to set up and manage your os is that you send up with a bunch of snowflakes - each one individual and special.

            By scripting the deployment you can reproduce a machine exactly as many times as you want.

            There's many benefits. E.g, you only need worry about backing up your data and not the OS.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "It's also not true of windows in general any more. There are plenty of things which must be done with scripts, in adfs and exchange for example."

              Scripts are not needed to create a template OS deploment image and apply security templates and GPO settings as is stated above.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "By scripting the deployment you can reproduce a machine exactly as many times as you want."

              And by imaging it via say WDS on Server 2016 you can reproduce a machine much faster and with less admin effort than having to script anything.

      3. TVU

        "Well if cost is your driver, RHEL at least costs a lot more to license in most cases than the equivalent Windows Server!"

        There's nothing to stop anyone downloading and deploying CentOS without any formal support and all the business then has to do is employ staff with RHEL experience.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "There's nothing to stop anyone downloading and deploying CentOS without any formal support and all the business then has to do is employ staff with RHEL experience."

          This ^, combined with throw-away Ansible (or similar) configured hosts is the future. So long as your Ansible builds are designed and work well, worst-case problems are solved by nuking the host and re-running the playbook to rebuild it.

          Save your money on support contracts and hire a few competent deployment admins.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "without any formal support"

          Thats not an option for most enterprises.

  4. Adam 1

    > the price bump was to be expected with the new version of Server, and could be used to nudge more customer toward Azure

    Or AWS, Golden Geese and all that.

    Price increases are fine if they follow inflation, but otherwise they had better think pretty hard about efficiency dividends. That is to say, if the price increases above inflation then the savings otherwise made because the thing is faster/copes with more concurrency/etc/more automation and management features better make up for it and then some. They would do well to remember that many are dealing with the meltdown/Spectre overheads already so may have needed to provision more servers for their workload and will be even less keen than normal for a price bump.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Or AWS, Golden Geese and all that."

      Not so far. Microsoft overtook AWS in total cloud revenue run rate a couple of quarters ago and are growing much faster.

      1. Adam 1

        So? I have no issues with Azure. It seems a reasonable cloud platform, but it's hardly the only game in town. Even if it's number two, it's generating more revenue than some countries. Then there's Google/Rackspace/Oracle*/IBM which are still viable alternatives for many customers.

        Let me spin this another way for you. Company X gets cross with Microsoft for raising prices and directly cutting into their profit margins. They decide cloud is more economical for some of their workloads. Do they:

        (a) blindly run to sign up for Microsoft's cloud offering, or

        (b) swear off that vendor to the extent possible.

        Again, it is different if some new magical network stack can handle double the TCP connections, but if the feature set is best described as evolutionary, then the pricing better well be too.

        *sorry, I'll wash my mouth out with soap.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Even if it's number two,"

          Azure is #1 by revenue now. A few $ billion a year ahead of AWS and the gap is growing.

          "due to Azure being +$$$$ than AWS and you can grow faster when you're smaller."

          Nope - often cheaper like for like. And as above in terns of revenue they are largest.

      2. EnviableOne Silver badge

        MS revenue run rate is due to Azure being +$$$$ than AWS and you can grow faster when you're smaller.

        AWS are still inovating, wheras MS are still playing catchup.

        Amazon dont care how cheapit is as long as it covers the costs (just) and provide everything you need to just get it going. MS factor cost + profit into everything and then screw you for add-ons, integrations, and stuff to make it actually work. Hence MS top the revenue table, but i bet customer wise and usefull workload wise AWS is far ahead.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          >>AWS are still inovating, wheras MS are still playing catchup."

          That's not the case anymore. Microsoft are substantively in the lead in terms of capabilities these days. Especially as there is no locking. For instance write something for DynamoDB? You are stuck with AWS. Write for Azure SQL? You can always move it on premise to SQL Server or run Azure SQL on Azure Stack.

          >>MS factor cost + profit into everything and then screw you for add-ons, integrations, and stuff to make it actually work

          No, Azure works out of the box perfectly well. There are plenty of third party integrations and paid options you might choose to use though - just as an example Citrix Cloud Netscaler, or Baracuda cloud firewalls. That's one advantage of Azure - a larger range of third party integrations.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            "Write for Azure SQL? You can always move it on premise to SQL Server or run Azure SQL on Azure Stack."

            Um, that's the very definition of vendor lock-in.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "Um, that's the very definition of vendor lock-in."

              But not cloud lock in. You can take your SQL Server and run it in someone else's cloud. Good luck doing that with Google or AWS cloud products.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "Microsoft overtook AWS in total cloud revenue run rate a couple of quarters ago and are growing much faster."

        And how does MS filling their pockets impact me as a sysadmin? If anything it simply reinforces how ridiculous the price hiking is, and how much their customers are being done over.

  5. Spender

    Now dotnet is open source...

    ...runs on linux and has very capable linux IDE, I can see a whole bunch of .NET development houses reconsidering this expense. I know we did (and aren't looking back).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Now dotnet is open source...

      I know, right?

      Even Microsoft are moving to Linux.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Now dotnet is open source...

        "Even Microsoft are moving to Linux."

        Not quite. There is no Linux kernel. They just run Linux userland on the Windows kernel.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Now dotnet is open source...

          Ported .NET, SQL Server, Powershell to Linux, VS.Code is cross-platform, and 40% azure VMs are Linux.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Now dotnet is open source...

            "Ported .NET, SQL Server, Powershell to Linux"

            Yes, so nice of Microsoft to fix some of the crappiest things associated with Linux.

            .Net - thank god I don't have to use Java

            SQL Server - Thank god I don't have to use Oracle's MySQL

            Powershell - Thank god I don't have to use BASH or PASH anymore.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Now dotnet is open source...

              Nobody uses Pash anyway, that just reinforces how out of touch you are with anything outside of Microsoft.

  6. Jaap Aap
    Trollface

    Maybe they should adopt a 'pay what you think it's worth'-scheme.

    1. Sgt_Oddball Silver badge

      Didn't they try that with Windows 10?

  7. gerdesj Silver badge

    Buggrit

    Hi, my name is Jon

    Hi Jon

    I've been clean of Windows on my personal systems for over 10 years now ...

    * wow* *well done* (etc ad nauseam)

    ... but the bigger boys ... they make me do it ... I can edit their docs and use their Exchange (Evolution with EWS) but I feel ashamed - I still can't open OneNotes ...

    ... I installed PS Core (from my package manager - not via a random download) Apparently it is normal to install any old stuff on a Windows box. I'll stick with curated by someone I've heard of on the end of a GPG sig.

    I'm not cured - I like to fix broken AD's I can't help it, they are so sad. I see OpenDNS used for upstream DNS and other things (*).

    Cheers

    Jon

    (*) ODNS will always reply with a record but sadly it might not be the one you want or need

    1. deadlockvictim Silver badge

      Re: Buggrit

      The first step is admitting that you have a problem. Well done Jon.

  8. Teiwaz

    Linux still gets Redmond love

    It's not really 'love' is it?

    Redmond just want to try to minimise people not paying them anything.

    In their eyes, If people feel they have to run Linux, they want to increase the chance of them doing so ontop of a Windows stack,

  9. JeffyPoooh
    Pint

    'Windows Server 2019' is coming next year

    What an extraordinary coincidence.

  10. Denarius Silver badge

    impossible happening

    AIX becoming cost competitive ? Will OpenVMS return ?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: impossible happening

      "Will OpenVMS return ?"

      Return from where? It never went anywhere.

  11. HmmmYes

    Ahh. I remember buying - wiht my own money! - W2K. I think it was about £80.

    At the time, it was probably the best PC OS outthere. It really was good.

    OK, cmdshell was shit.

    But it managed the new multicore CPUs pretty well.

    I avoid MS consumer OSes. Not worth the hassle.

    Next and last impressive server OS was WS2008R2. Well done on that. Then pwoerhsell was starting to emerge.

    Sticker - £600.

    After that - WS2012 - a server OS with a GUI from a mobile phone. No thanks.

    Sticker price for a system - MSSQL was a few 1000.

    Id learnt my lession by WS2008R2. I stoppedu sing MS server unless I had to.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "After that - WS2012 - a server OS with a GUI from a mobile phone. No thanks."

      Why are you using a GUI on the server anyway. You should be using a golden host and remote admin tools or Powershell.

      nb - by default Server 2016 doesn't have a GUI. You have to choose to install it.

      1. HmmmYes

        Because I have to to set it up before I can remote to it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Because I have to to set it up before I can remote to it."

          Which you can do with a couple of commands from the CLI. Or if you are not a competent admin, install the GUI, set it up then uninstall it.

      2. Nick Ryan Silver badge

        Why are you using a GUI on the server anyway. You should be using a golden host and remote admin tools or Powershell.

        nb - by default Server 2016 doesn't have a GUI. You have to choose to install it.

        Because lots of retarded server applications require that the full desktop bloody experience version of server is installed so they can install and operate. Microsoft applications, not just 3rd party ones.

        Also, you don't chose to install the Server 2016 GUI, unlike server 2012 you install either core or the desktop experience version, you cannot switch between them without a wipe/reinstall. The recommended install of Server 2016 is the core install, the required install of Server 2016 is often the desktop experience version.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "Because lots of retarded server applications require that the full desktop bloody experience"

          Actually its very few these days if you try. And if you have some, use the GUI selectively.

          "you cannot switch between them without a wipe/reinstall"

          If you install the GUI version to start with you can then remove and re-add it the GUI. But yes Server core doesnt support a GUI.

          1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

            "you cannot switch between them without a wipe/reinstall"

            If you install the GUI version to start with you can then remove and re-add it the GUI. But yes Server core doesnt support a GUI.

            When did you try this? With the beta release or the RTM version? This was a function that was removed from the RTM version.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              "When did you try this? With the beta release or the RTM version? This was a function that was removed from the RTM version."

              Yes it was probably in testing pre-release. All our servers run Server Core so we had not noticed it was no longer an option. Sucks though - was useful to be able to switch.

  12. N2

    Brilliant

    News ways to make familliar fuck ups, where do I sign?

  13. HmmmYes

    And as far as '2016 not having a GUI ....'

    Hurrah! MS invent Unix and the command shell - eventually.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      command shell

      heh, I wouldn't go that far.

  14. ColonelClaw

    "...moving workloads to Azure is one way to avoid this cost, since there is no concept of a Windows Server base CAL in Azure."

    Well, not yet, anyway.

    1. Nick Ryan Silver badge

      A cynical person might suggest that it's another thinly veiled plot from Microsoft to coerce users from purchasing MS server and to instead to move to the rental cloud model instead.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GUI

    Windows Server semi annual release does not have a GUI (desktop experience). It only supports Core and Nano deployment options.

    Windows Server 2019 (the product in this article) is the next LTSC version of Windows Server and does have a GUI if you want it. It supports Core and Desktop Experience deployment options.

    I have just deployed a test 2019 preview server and one thing it DOESN'T have is the RDSH (Remote Desktop Session Host) role service. It is missing from server manager and can't be added with PowerShell. If you try doing a Remote Desktop Services Installation in server manager it falls over when it tries to install the RDSH role service:

    "The role, role service, or feature name is not valid: 'rds-rd-server'"

    Apart from this bizarre omission, at first glance it looks exactly like Server 2016. Not looked in any great detail yet to see what is different under the hood.

  16. avensis18

    The impression that gives me this announcement, it is a lot of complexity to ensure security and especially to justify an ever higher license cost. But my experience proves that the complexity of building windows server 2019 will be difficult to understand correctly by users and will easily imply loss of performance. Gift for the server builders! As for security, the more barriers there are, the more gaps you have to make!

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like