no IM in Exchange 2003 is a rip-off!!

[Mike Abrahamson]

So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying me. I
would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We already
run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM has
been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35 for
each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already have
deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't make
any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
incorrect?

Mike Abrahamson

[JW]

I am also surprised at what looks like changes to the original plan whch was
to make the server an optionnal installation component of Windows 2003
Server. During the beta of RTC it was implied that that there would be a
CAL
for the optional "MSN Messenger Service" which would permit secure IM
between business partners which makes sense since an external server would
be imvolved in the sesssion. It was also stated that there would be CALs
required for the new and optional "Content Loggin" capability if a SQL DB
was used for the logs. It was never implied that that there would be a CAL
required for plain corporate IM service which was free with Esxchange 2000
especially since it still does not even have as much functionality as
NetMeeting.

ed that"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying me.
I
> would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We already
> run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM has
> been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35 for
> each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already have
> deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't make
> any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> incorrect?
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
>

[Jonathan Kay [MVP]]

Greetings Mike,

I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard conflicting information on this), but
I believe what you have below is correct.
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com


"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying me. I
> would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We already
> run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM has
> been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35 for
> each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already have
> deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't make
> any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> incorrect?
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
>

[Trevor Miller]

I agree with you 100% - this is akin to creating a new Word Processing
application - calling it "Letter" and having the migration path from Word
point to it. Own upgrade rights to MS Word? Tough.

This is a VERY big slap in the face to those who bought into the new
licensing schemes and will make then much harder to sell "up the ladder" in
the future.

-trevor

"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying me.
I
> would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We already
> run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM has
> been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35 for
> each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already have
> deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't make
> any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> incorrect?
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
>

[Mike Abrahamson]

I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
expert...

Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003 license and
install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise so I
have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have software
assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just so I
can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of Software
Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they are
going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a breach
of contract in my book.

I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that they will
adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a loyal
Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new licensing
scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are a small
company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of software
over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a better job
of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those of us who
stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the market
condemned the program.

Mike Abrahamson

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Greetings Mike,
>
> I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard conflicting
information on this), but
> I believe what you have below is correct.
> ____________________________________________
> Jonathan Kay
> Windows MVP, Messenger
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
>
>
> "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying me.
I
> > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We
already
> > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM
has
> > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35
for
> > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already
have
> > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't
make
> > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> > incorrect?
> >
> > Mike Abrahamson
> >
> >
>
>

[Brian McLain]

You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an Enterprise
Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:

Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for each
Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications Server CAL
for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is active on the
date of Live Communications Server's VL release.

"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
> expert...
>
> Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003 license
and
> install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise so I
> have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have software
> assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just so I
> can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of Software
> Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they are
> going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a breach
> of contract in my book.
>
> I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that they will
> adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a loyal
> Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new licensing
> scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are a
small
> company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of software
> over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a better
job
> of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those of us
who
> stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the market
> condemned the program.
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
> "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Greetings Mike,
> >
> > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard conflicting
> information on this), but
> > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > ____________________________________________
> > Jonathan Kay
> > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > Associate Expert
> > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> >
> >
> > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying
me.
> I
> > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We
> already
> > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that IM
> has
> > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus $35
> for
> > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I already
> have
> > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It doesn't
> make
> > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> > > incorrect?
> > >
> > > Mike Abrahamson
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Abrahamson]

Well that makes all the difference. I will indeed keep on them regarding
this. Is an Open License Value considered an Enterprise Agreement? We do
have SA for our Exchange licenses and all our CALs.

Mike Abrahamson


"Brian McLain" > wrote in message
...
> You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an
Enterprise
> Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:
>
> Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
> Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for each
> Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications Server
CAL
> for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is active on
the
> date of Live Communications Server's VL release.
>
> "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
> > expert...
> >
> > Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003 license
> and
> > install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise so I
> > have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have
software
> > assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just so
I
> > can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of
Software
> > Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they are
> > going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a
breach
> > of contract in my book.
> >
> > I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> > money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that they
will
> > adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a loyal
> > Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new licensing
> > scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are a
> small
> > company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of software
> > over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a better
> job
> > of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those of us
> who
> > stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the market
> > condemned the program.
> >
> > Mike Abrahamson
> >
> > "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Greetings Mike,
> > >
> > > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard conflicting
> > information on this), but
> > > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > > ____________________________________________
> > > Jonathan Kay
> > > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > > Associate Expert
> > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> > >
> > >
> > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is worrying
> me.
> > I
> > > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We
> > already
> > > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that
IM
> > has
> > > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus
$35
> > for
> > > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I
already
> > have
> > > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It
doesn't
> > make
> > > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario is
> > > > incorrect?
> > > >
> > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Brian McLain]

I don't think so, but it is worth checking.

"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> Well that makes all the difference. I will indeed keep on them regarding
> this. Is an Open License Value considered an Enterprise Agreement? We do
> have SA for our Exchange licenses and all our CALs.
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
>
> "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> ...
> > You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an
> Enterprise
> > Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:
> >
> > Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
> > Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for each
> > Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications Server
> CAL
> > for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is active on
> the
> > date of Live Communications Server's VL release.
> >
> > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
> > > expert...
> > >
> > > Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003
license
> > and
> > > install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise so
I
> > > have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have
> software
> > > assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just
so
> I
> > > can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of
> Software
> > > Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they
are
> > > going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a
> breach
> > > of contract in my book.
> > >
> > > I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> > > money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that they
> will
> > > adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a loyal
> > > Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new licensing
> > > scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are a
> > small
> > > company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of
software
> > > over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a
better
> > job
> > > of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those of
us
> > who
> > > stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the
market
> > > condemned the program.
> > >
> > > Mike Abrahamson
> > >
> > > "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Greetings Mike,
> > > >
> > > > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard conflicting
> > > information on this), but
> > > > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > Jonathan Kay
> > > > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > > > Associate Expert
> > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is
worrying
> > me.
> > > I
> > > > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003. We
> > > already
> > > > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading that
> IM
> > > has
> > > > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929 plus
> $35
> > > for
> > > > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I
> already
> > > have
> > > > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It
> doesn't
> > > make
> > > > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario
is
> > > > > incorrect?
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Mike Abrahamson]

OK, I just received confirmation that customers who have Exchange 2000
covered by SA will receive Live Communications server CAL for CAL, server
for server. So for each of your Exchange 2000 licenses under Software
Assurance you will receive a corresponding LCS license. Congrats to
Microsoft for doing the right thing!!

Mike Abrahamson


"Brian McLain" > wrote in message
...
> I don't think so, but it is worth checking.
>
> "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Well that makes all the difference. I will indeed keep on them
regarding
> > this. Is an Open License Value considered an Enterprise Agreement? We
do
> > have SA for our Exchange licenses and all our CALs.
> >
> > Mike Abrahamson
> >
> >
> > "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an
> > Enterprise
> > > Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:
> > >
> > > Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
> > > Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for each
> > > Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications
Server
> > CAL
> > > for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is active
on
> > the
> > > date of Live Communications Server's VL release.
> > >
> > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
> > > > expert...
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003
> license
> > > and
> > > > install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise
so
> I
> > > > have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have
> > software
> > > > assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just
> so
> > I
> > > > can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of
> > Software
> > > > Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they
> are
> > > > going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a
> > breach
> > > > of contract in my book.
> > > >
> > > > I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> > > > money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that
they
> > will
> > > > adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a
loyal
> > > > Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new
licensing
> > > > scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are
a
> > > small
> > > > company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of
> software
> > > > over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a
> better
> > > job
> > > > of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those
of
> us
> > > who
> > > > stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the
> market
> > > > condemned the program.
> > > >
> > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > >
> > > > "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in
message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Greetings Mike,
> > > > >
> > > > > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard
conflicting
> > > > information on this), but
> > > > > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > Jonathan Kay
> > > > > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > > > > Associate Expert
> > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > > > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is
> worrying
> > > me.
> > > > I
> > > > > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003.
We
> > > > already
> > > > > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading
that
> > IM
> > > > has
> > > > > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929
plus
> > $35
> > > > for
> > > > > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I
> > already
> > > > have
> > > > > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It
> > doesn't
> > > > make
> > > > > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario
> is
> > > > > > incorrect?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Kay [MVP]]

Hi Mike,

Excellent news =).
____________________________________________
Jonathan Kay
Windows MVP, Messenger
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com

"Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
...
> OK, I just received confirmation that customers who have Exchange 2000
> covered by SA will receive Live Communications server CAL for CAL, server
> for server. So for each of your Exchange 2000 licenses under Software
> Assurance you will receive a corresponding LCS license. Congrats to
> Microsoft for doing the right thing!!
>
> Mike Abrahamson
>
>
> "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't think so, but it is worth checking.
> >
> > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Well that makes all the difference. I will indeed keep on them
> regarding
> > > this. Is an Open License Value considered an Enterprise Agreement? We
> do
> > > have SA for our Exchange licenses and all our CALs.
> > >
> > > Mike Abrahamson
> > >
> > >
> > > "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an
> > > Enterprise
> > > > Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:
> > > >
> > > > Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
> > > > Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for each
> > > > Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications
> Server
> > > CAL
> > > > for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is active
> on
> > > the
> > > > date of Live Communications Server's VL release.
> > > >
> > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft licensing
> > > > > expert...
> > > > >
> > > > > Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003
> > license
> > > > and
> > > > > install it on another server and run both versions in my enterprise
> so
> > I
> > > > > have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already have
> > > software
> > > > > assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license just
> > so
> > > I
> > > > > can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point of
> > > Software
> > > > > Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If they
> > are
> > > > > going to strip features out of the products then that constitutes a
> > > breach
> > > > > of contract in my book.
> > > > >
> > > > > I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> > > > > money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that
> they
> > > will
> > > > > adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a
> loyal
> > > > > Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new
> licensing
> > > > > scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We are
> a
> > > > small
> > > > > company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of
> > software
> > > > > over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a
> > better
> > > > job
> > > > > of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially those
> of
> > us
> > > > who
> > > > > stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the
> > market
> > > > > condemned the program.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > >
> > > > > "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in
> message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > Greetings Mike,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard
> conflicting
> > > > > information on this), but
> > > > > > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > > Jonathan Kay
> > > > > > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > > > > > Associate Expert
> > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > > > > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is
> > worrying
> > > > me.
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to EX2003.
> We
> > > > > already
> > > > > > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm reading
> that
> > > IM
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs $929
> plus
> > > $35
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service I
> > > already
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003? It
> > > doesn't
> > > > > make
> > > > > > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this scenario
> > is
> > > > > > > incorrect?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[JW]

Does this also mean that if you purchase Exchange 2003 as new that you
receive a LCS CAL for each Exchange 2003 CAL that you purchase? This would
certainly make sense and would help to insure good market share in the IM
business.

"Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in message
...
> Hi Mike,
>
> Excellent news =).
> ____________________________________________
> Jonathan Kay
> Windows MVP, Messenger
> Associate Expert
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
>
> "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> ...
> > OK, I just received confirmation that customers who have Exchange 2000
> > covered by SA will receive Live Communications server CAL for CAL,
server
> > for server. So for each of your Exchange 2000 licenses under Software
> > Assurance you will receive a corresponding LCS license. Congrats to
> > Microsoft for doing the right thing!!
> >
> > Mike Abrahamson
> >
> >
> > "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I don't think so, but it is worth checking.
> > >
> > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Well that makes all the difference. I will indeed keep on them
> > regarding
> > > > this. Is an Open License Value considered an Enterprise Agreement?
We
> > do
> > > > have SA for our Exchange licenses and all our CALs.
> > > >
> > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Brian McLain" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > You need to have another talk with your reseller. If you have an
> > > > Enterprise
> > > > > Agreement, you should be covered. Here is what I was told:
> > > > >
> > > > > Exchange SA customers will receive the right to complimentary Live
> > > > > Communications Server licenses (1 Live Communications Server for
each
> > > > > Exchange Server license enrolled in SA, and 1 Live Communications
> > Server
> > > > CAL
> > > > > for each Exchange CAL enrolled in SA), if their Exchange SA is
active
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > date of Live Communications Server's VL release.
> > > > >
> > > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > I just spoke with my reseller who spoke with her Microsoft
licensing
> > > > > > expert...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Microsoft's suggestion to me is to purchase a new Exchange 2003
> > > license
> > > > > and
> > > > > > install it on another server and run both versions in my
enterprise
> > so
> > > I
> > > > > > have all the functionality of both. WHAT?!?!?!?! I already
have
> > > > software
> > > > > > assurance on Exchange and now they want me to buy a new license
just
> > > so
> > > > I
> > > > > > can cover their ommission of IM from EX2003! Wasn't the point
of
> > > > Software
> > > > > > Assurance to provide us with enhanced value for our money? If
they
> > > are
> > > > > > going to strip features out of the products then that
constitutes a
> > > > breach
> > > > > > of contract in my book.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I urge everyone to complain to your resellers about this latest
> > > > > > money-grabbing tactic by Microsoft. There is some evidence that
> > they
> > > > will
> > > > > > adjust their stance if there is enough backlash. I have been a
> > loyal
> > > > > > Microsoft customer for several years. I bought into the new
> > licensing
> > > > > > scheme and trusted them with my company's hard-earned money. We
are
> > a
> > > > > small
> > > > > > company that will likely purchase thousands of dollars worth of
> > > software
> > > > > > over the course of our existence. I think Microsoft should do a
> > > better
> > > > > job
> > > > > > of satisfying its best and most loyal customers - especially
those
> > of
> > > us
> > > > > who
> > > > > > stayed the course with the new licensing scheme when most of the
> > > market
> > > > > > condemned the program.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Jonathan Kay [MVP]" > wrote in
> > message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > Greetings Mike,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am going to double-check on this (I've actually heard
> > conflicting
> > > > > > information on this), but
> > > > > > > I believe what you have below is correct.
> > > > > > > ____________________________________________
> > > > > > > Jonathan Kay
> > > > > > > Windows MVP, Messenger
> > > > > > > Associate Expert
> > > > > > > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/
> > > > > > > Messenger Resources - http://messenger.jonathankay.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Mike Abrahamson" > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > So far what I'm reading about Live Communications Server is
> > > worrying
> > > > > me.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > would like to upgrade my Exchange 2000 organization to
EX2003.
> > We
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > > run Windows Messenger for Exchange in-house. Now I'm
reading
> > that
> > > > IM
> > > > > > has
> > > > > > > > been taken out of Exchange and moved to LCS, which costs
$929
> > plus
> > > > $35
> > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > each CAL!!! Why should I have to pay so much for a service
I
> > > > already
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > deployed just because I want to upgrade to Exchange 2003?
It
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > > > any sense to me. Can someone please correct me if this
scenario
> > > is
> > > > > > > > incorrect?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mike Abrahamson
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>