5 ms·

I really would want to use Windows Server, especially with the upcoming nano version, but it is a full 50% more expensive on Azure. A D4 instance (8 cores Haswe

I really would want to use Windows Server, especially with the upcoming nano version, but it is a full 50% more expensive on Azure. A D4 instance (8 cores Haswell Xeon, 28GB ram. 400GB local SSD) costs $458 with Oracle Linux and $833!!! with Windows. It just does not make any sense for me to chose Windows. At this point, I wonder why Microsoft even bothers innovating on Windows Server when it is going to get chosen only by orgs who need to run MSFT software or C#. Those guys don't care about nano or containers or whatever.

arethuza 11y ago
Or any other applications that only run on Windows - which in the enterprise world is a lot of applications, not just from Microsoft.
- creshal 11y ago
  Still, forcing people to pay such a significant premium isn't exactly how you get people to use your product. And I don't know about cloud pricing for Windows machines, but the price difference isn't nearly as crippling on regular VPS/physical hosting.
- dan_b 11y ago
  I was suprised to see how many Java applications run on Windows + MSSQL.
creshal 11y ago
> when it is going to get chosen only by orgs who need to run MSFT software or C# And MSFT is positioning C# to run better on Linux too…
- hvidgaard 11y ago
  Define "run better". They're enabling it, but I fail to see why it should run better.
  - breakingcups 11y ago
    I think creshal meant run better (on Linux) than it did before (on Linux). C# on linux has been possible for a while now with Mono, but Microsoft is giving it an even bigger push.
    - creshal 11y ago
      Yes. Mono was (and is) a rather poor substitute for the real deal.
    - hvidgaard 11y ago
      Fair enough, I didn't think of it from that point of view.
zokier 11y ago
> Those guys don't care about nano or containers or whatever That's ridiculous. Just because someone picks a different tech stack does not mean that they do not care about the advantages that all that fancy new stuff gives.
pjc50 11y ago
Let's not forget all the craziness that is the "client access license": http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/...
- UK-AL 11y ago
  If you deploying a website, that's not an issue.
  - pjc50 11y ago
    Correct, but maybe one day someone might want to write or use some software that's not a web app?
UK-AL 11y ago
"Those guys don't care about nano or containers or whatever." The biggest take up of containers is actually large companies.
pjmlp 11y ago
For orgs that run on MSFT the subscriptions prices are actually quite good vs what they are paying for other enterprise software like Oracle,SAP and so on. Also as an OS geek, I do happen to like Windows and see UNIX hegemony as killing OS research.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Windows isn't exactly known for OS innovation! A whole bunch of things were promised for Longhorn and then never delivered. Are you thinking of one of the many Microsoft Research projects that hasn't quite made it into use? The sheer permanence of the Windows API makes it hard for Windows to innovate.
  - UK-AL 11y ago
    The NT Kernel has some cool features. One of them is that it has environment subsystems. So it has POSIX environment subsystem, Win32 subsystem , OS/2 subsystem. So it's not limited by the win32 api. Most of these are no longer maintained, but has the capability to do so.
    - beagle3 11y ago
      In what way do these "environment subsystems" differ from a user-level library? Linux has a Win32 subsystem, it's called "Wine", and POSIX subsystems called "glibc" and "musl". Seriously, what makes these "subsystems" different than "libraries", other than they are shipped with the OS?
      - pjmlp 11y ago
        You cannot implement features like fork() without kernel level support. This is just one example.
        beagle3 11y ago
        There have, in fact, been multiple fork() implementation for Windows without kernel support. They weren't very efficient, but IIRC, only in version 1.7 (at about 15 years of age), did the Cygwin fork() implementation start to use kernel support. And that still does not answer my question: In what way is the "NT kernel subsystem" different from a user mode library? Either the underlying kernel supports the features you need, or it doesn't. From my perspective, there's an NT kernel (with the so-called Native API) and a few libraries that make it look like Win32 or severely limited POSIX or at one point in time OS2.
blinkingled 11y ago
As pjmlp mentioned below bigger orgs have better Microsoft licensing deals - volume licenses and such and smaller ones can apply for Bizspark or whatever to get lower prices. But yeah your point still stands that they should simplify the licensing for people who are neither big org nor a small startup. Especially so in the wake of cloud and Linux.
dethswatch 11y ago
actually, really DO care about containers. What I'm caring less and less about is MSFT. The feeling is mutual- they just really don't give a fuck about you if you're doing anything but using Azure though. I'm finding that I need them less and less.
rbanffy 11y ago
By making Windows on Azure significantly more expensive than other technologies they create a negative incentive to develop new software to run on Windows. With time, this will hurt their own relevance. For this example, it's $375 per server that Windows development would need to be cheaper than nix. If development costs the same, a .nix-based solution would be able to use that $375 for a higher-capacity compute node.

arethuza 11y ago

Or any other applications that only run on Windows - which in the enterprise world is a lot of applications, not just from Microsoft.

creshal 11y ago
Still, forcing people to pay such a significant premium isn't exactly how you get people to use your product. And I don't know about cloud pricing for Windows machines, but the price difference isn't nearly as crippling on regular VPS/physical hosting.
dan_b 11y ago
I was suprised to see how many Java applications run on Windows + MSSQL.

creshal 11y ago

> when it is going to get chosen only by orgs who need to run MSFT software or C# And MSFT is positioning C# to run better on Linux too…

hvidgaard 11y ago
Define "run better". They're enabling it, but I fail to see why it should run better.
- breakingcups 11y ago
  I think creshal meant run better (on Linux) than it did before (on Linux). C# on linux has been possible for a while now with Mono, but Microsoft is giving it an even bigger push.
  - creshal 11y ago
    Yes. Mono was (and is) a rather poor substitute for the real deal.
  - hvidgaard 11y ago
    Fair enough, I didn't think of it from that point of view.

zokier 11y ago

> Those guys don't care about nano or containers or whatever That's ridiculous. Just because someone picks a different tech stack does not mean that they do not care about the advantages that all that fancy new stuff gives.

pjc50 11y ago

Let's not forget all the craziness that is the "client access license": http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/10/licensing-how-to-when-do-i-need-a-client-access-license-cal.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/volume-licensing/archive/2014/03/...

UK-AL 11y ago
If you deploying a website, that's not an issue.
- pjc50 11y ago
  Correct, but maybe one day someone might want to write or use some software that's not a web app?

UK-AL 11y ago

"Those guys don't care about nano or containers or whatever." The biggest take up of containers is actually large companies.

pjmlp 11y ago

For orgs that run on MSFT the subscriptions prices are actually quite good vs what they are paying for other enterprise software like Oracle,SAP and so on. Also as an OS geek, I do happen to like Windows and see UNIX hegemony as killing OS research.

pjc50 11y ago
Windows isn't exactly known for OS innovation! A whole bunch of things were promised for Longhorn and then never delivered. Are you thinking of one of the many Microsoft Research projects that hasn't quite made it into use? The sheer permanence of the Windows API makes it hard for Windows to innovate.
- UK-AL 11y ago
  The NT Kernel has some cool features. One of them is that it has environment subsystems. So it has POSIX environment subsystem, Win32 subsystem , OS/2 subsystem. So it's not limited by the win32 api. Most of these are no longer maintained, but has the capability to do so.
  - beagle3 11y ago
    In what way do these "environment subsystems" differ from a user-level library? Linux has a Win32 subsystem, it's called "Wine", and POSIX subsystems called "glibc" and "musl". Seriously, what makes these "subsystems" different than "libraries", other than they are shipped with the OS?
    - pjmlp 11y ago
      You cannot implement features like fork() without kernel level support. This is just one example.
      - beagle3 11y ago
        There have, in fact, been multiple fork() implementation for Windows without kernel support. They weren't very efficient, but IIRC, only in version 1.7 (at about 15 years of age), did the Cygwin fork() implementation start to use kernel support. And that still does not answer my question: In what way is the "NT kernel subsystem" different from a user mode library? Either the underlying kernel supports the features you need, or it doesn't. From my perspective, there's an NT kernel (with the so-called Native API) and a few libraries that make it look like Win32 or severely limited POSIX or at one point in time OS2.

blinkingled 11y ago

As pjmlp mentioned below bigger orgs have better Microsoft licensing deals - volume licenses and such and smaller ones can apply for Bizspark or whatever to get lower prices. But yeah your point still stands that they should simplify the licensing for people who are neither big org nor a small startup. Especially so in the wake of cloud and Linux.

dethswatch 11y ago

actually, really DO care about containers. What I'm caring less and less about is MSFT. The feeling is mutual- they just really don't give a fuck about you if you're doing anything but using Azure though. I'm finding that I need them less and less.

rbanffy 11y ago

By making Windows on Azure significantly more expensive than other technologies they create a negative incentive to develop new software to run on Windows. With time, this will hurt their own relevance. For this example, it's $375 per server that Windows development would need to be cheaper than nix. If development costs the same, a .nix-based solution would be able to use that $375 for a higher-capacity compute node.