7 ms·

This article from 1993 has the most important detail missing from the Register article: https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1993/08/09/7817

• jon-wood 4y ago
  I’m not convinced that was much of a reason. Windows NT 4 Server pricing was similar, with licenses needed for each client connecting, plus additional licensing for the OS running on those clients.
  • EvanAnderson 4y ago
    I was deploying a lot of small office networks in the late 90s. I found NT 3.51 and 4.0 a ton easier to purchase for Customers (i.e. the company I worked for needed a much looser “partnership” arrangement with Microsoft vs. Novell). NT was definitely cheaper, too. That made a difference in small deployments where I was often getting nickel-and-dimed.
  • merlyn 4y ago
    I think licensing was a huge factor in Microsoft winning. Microsoft's license was soft, and depending on the customer buying enough paper to cover, if you could even find a reseller that could describe how to properly license Windows Server (exteremely doubtful). OOTH, Novell's licensing was a hard limit. Once that # of workstations logged in, those without a license were hosed. On all the jobs I did in those days, Novell networks at each customer site _never_ had enough licenses to cover every workstation. There was always somebody left out and they had to go bug people to see if they were done with the network so they could get in their tasks. Nobody ever seemed to overprovision their licenses to cover every single workstation (or even to have extra). I never met a company using Microsoft server that properly had their CALs licensed, and they didn't want to hear it from me. Finding somebody to sell you the proper CALs was an interesting exercise. Most other network server OSes at the time (the Unix vendors were trying hard in this space in those early days too) also had hard licenses. Which was part of why they didn't gain traction at all.
    • EvanAnderson 4y ago
      MSFT licensing being “soft” with enforcement has always seemed like a major strategic advantage for them.
      • TillE 4y ago
        They got serious about license activation in the Windows Vista - Windows 7 era, but now they're back to where anyone can install a Windows license of their choice with just a few commands, using a pirate KMS server.
        • Karunamon 4y ago
          The cynical take on this is that Microsoft has pivoted hard into being a services and advertising company, so it is more important to them that you run Windows with all of its data gathering and advertising and cloud BS then it is that you paid for Windows at all. They could easily break the fake KMS but choose not to. It speaks a lot to their priorities.
          • robotnikman 4y ago
            That's what I figured as well. To Microsoft right now, more devices running windows = more data gathered, regardless of whether the device was activated by a pirated KMS server or not.
            • DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
              LTSB/LTSC doesn't have the anything like the levels of telemetry in the Home SKUs, but even so, as a (former) MSFT SE I can give you my personal assurances that the telemtry is about seeing how the product is used and not for marketing/money-making reasons (beyond, ostensibly, making the product better to entice people to pay for upgrades or subscription services).
              • robotnikman 4y ago
  • tssva 4y ago
    The pricing quote is from 1993 when Windows NT 3.1 was released. A Windows NT 3.1 server license cost $1500 and didn't require client access licensing. Many of my clients jumped ship from Netware because of the huge price difference. Almost all of them were pissed when NT 3.5 was released and required client access licensing but having just finished migrating off Netware they weren't going to migrate back.
• Genbox 4y ago
  For everyone else wondering. Prices adjusted for inflation: $4,695 in 1993 is worth $9,682 today. $47,995 is worth $98,982 today