SOFTWARE REDEVELOPER Microsoft has partially revealed the cost of running Windows Server 2012, retiring its popular Small Business Server edition.
Microsoft has spent the last year talking about Windows 8, but compared to the company's desktop PC operating system, Windows Server is arguably more profitable.
Microsoft is getting ready to release Windows Server 2012. With this interation the firm has revealed that it will offer four Windows Server 2012 editions, including Foundation, Essentials, Standard and Datacenter.
According to Microsoft, Windows Server 2012 Foundation will only be available to OEMs and will come with a 15 user limit and no virtualisation rights. The company also will offer Windows Server 2012 Essentials, which has a 25 user limit but still no virtualisation rights, and will cost $425 under Microsoft's Open No Level licensing.
Microsoft's Windows Server 2012 Standard and Datacenter editions will allow virtualisation, though the former edition allows only two instances, and these are priced at $882 and $4,809, respectively, excluding Windows Client Access Licenses (CALs).
Although Microsoft claims that Windows Server 2012 will be "cloud-optimised", the firm's pricing structure seems to suggest that rather than hosting 'clouds', Windows Server 2012 is better at accessing them. Only the firm's Windows Server 2012 Datacenter edition can be deployed on more than two virtual instances, and at $4,809 plus process and Windows CALs also needing to be purchased, this version could be a marketing gift for Red Hat, Canonical and everyone else in the Openstack consortium.
Microsoft might have made upgrading client PCs to Windows 8 Professional a relatively cheap affair, but Windows Server 2012 will continue to soak Microsoft's enterprise customers with high prices in a server market where Linux-based operating systems can compete with it on every level. µ
Plus, it's goodbye to Device Assist
Vulnerabilities in the iOS sandbox thankfully found by the good guys
Data watchdog will make sure firm is being fully transparent about the controversial move
Chinese firm reportedly forces staff to do 82 hours of overtime a month