Posted on September 29th, 2009 by Jon Honeyball
Making sense of Microsoft’s downgrade rights

Trying to work out Microsoft’s licensing policies is enough to make a grown man (or woman) cry. You always seem to be in a maze of twisty passages, all alike, and it’s hard to know whether what you are doing is actually legally correct.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Microsoft will not understand the pain and cost it imposes on its customers until it actually has to run software licensing internally. I accept that the development groups can be let off, because they are constantly installing and uninstalling beta versions of their software. Or running up the Serbo Croation version to check a typo. But the marketing arms of Microsoft have absolutely no excuses - they should run licensing and pay internally in exactly the same way that we do. If that happened, then I predict there would be massive simplication within months.
In the meantime, we can but dream. However, there have been moves to make things easier, even if the new information isn’t obvious and you don’t notice it for some time.
This page contains a longwinded table about the various downgrade rights you have for Windows Server. From this table you can see that, for example, a current “Windows Server 2008 Enterprise without Hyper-V” can be used as a downgrade licence all the way back to “Windows 2000 Advanced Server”. Actually, come to think of it, I thought the “without Hyper-V” versions of Server 2008 never actually shipped – but maybe thats just another example of the maze of twisting passages that Microsoft’s product set consists of.
Actually, a senior Microsoft executive recently told me that Microsoft has some 138 individual products. Some might argue this is way too many.
Posted in: Real World Computing, Software
Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
2 Responses to “ Making sense of Microsoft’s downgrade rights ”
Leave a Reply
Authors
- Barry Collins
- Chris Brennan
- Christine Horton
- Darien Graham-Smith
- Dave Stevenson
- Davey Winder
- David Bayon
- David Fearon
- Ewen Rankin
- Ian Devlin
- Jon Honeyball
- Jonathan Bray
- Kevin Partner
- Mike Jennings
- Nicole Kobie
- Sasha Muller
- Steve Cassidy
- Stewart Mitchell
- Stuart Turton
- Tim Danton
- Tom Arah
Categories
- About the bloggers
- Android App of the Week
- cloud computing
- Green
- Hardware
- How To
- iPhone App of the Week
- Just in
- Microsoft Office 2010
- Newsdesk
- Online business
- Random
- Rant
- Real World Computing
- Software
- View from the Labs
- Windows 7
- Windows 8
Archives
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
advertisement


September 29th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
When I worked at the BBC I still had to pay for a TV license, in effect paying my own wages. If it’s good enough for Auntie…
September 29th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Your senior Microsoft executive shares an attribute common to that group–ignorance about what Microsoft actually does. The product list for volume customers has more than 250 products on it. It does not include any consumer software, Web sites and programs, hardware, etc. The last time I did a full count that included that stuff, the number was over 400. You’re right about this, however: some people think this is far too many