IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns **
** This thread discusses the Content article: IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns **
0

[Guest.Visitor]

IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns

** This thread discusses the article: IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns **
I dont know if you realize but most users signon more than once, I thought the 515 was aimed at the SMB, and the Small in the SMB...most SMBs are not factories was multiple shifts. Concurrent users will be worse, most of our clients users have 2, 3 4 and even 5 sessions going at one time, now I need buy 5 licenses for one user.

[swanzoid]

IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns

** This thread discusses the article: IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns **
I would certainly expect IBM to recognize people signed on with multiple sessions as single users, as that would only make sense in keeping with the "spirit" of per-user pricing -- but perhaps that should be explicitly stated in the article to keep the rumors from flying.

[TheQuigs]

IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns

** This thread discusses the article: IBM Takes Aim at System i Cost Concerns **
When we bought an AS/400 model 310 back in the early-to-mid 90s, we licensed the OS paid for by a price per user. I'm almost positive it was defined as concurrent users. Multiple sessions on a PC were still counted as one user. The system tracked license usage (as it has the capability to do today) and if I recall correctly reported when we approached the number of licensed users. Then if we went over, we had a 30- or 60-day grace period to rectify the licensing. It wasn't that big a deal. I don't think this is either, but I think it's definitely a good move on IBM's part--i.e., addressing the initial entry price of the system and endeavoring to lower it. The article states "determining peak concurrent users is an exercise that the system’s monitoring tools cannot support as easily." Why not? The current license key functions handle this. Like I say, I don't think this is a new idea.