<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Micromail.com Blog</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.micromail.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.micromail.com</link>
	<description>Software Licensing Made Simple</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:25:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Further Changes in Adobe Upgrade Policy by Fionan</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2012/01/19/further-changes-in-adobe-upgrade-policy/#comment-124</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Fionan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:25:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=291#comment-124</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Graham, thanks for your comment. Yes, unfortunatley Adobe can be a bit slow to alert customers to major licensing/upgrade changes; but we&#039;ll certainly post any major developments that are of importance. So keep an eye here!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Graham, thanks for your comment. Yes, unfortunatley Adobe can be a bit slow to alert customers to major licensing/upgrade changes; but we&#8217;ll certainly post any major developments that are of importance. So keep an eye here!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Further Changes in Adobe Upgrade Policy by Graham Panton</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2012/01/19/further-changes-in-adobe-upgrade-policy/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Graham Panton]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:43:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=291#comment-123</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for at last thinking of your long term amateur users who cannot afford to instantly upgrade to the next version as soon as it is released or who don&#039;t need a few extras that the upgrades gives at what in the UK is around the £200 mark!
My real annoyance is that despite being a registered customer since Photoshop version 3 I rearly if ever get a email from Adobe and like most others learn what Adobe are about to do via the press. Not very customer focused I think you&#039;ll agree!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for at last thinking of your long term amateur users who cannot afford to instantly upgrade to the next version as soon as it is released or who don&#8217;t need a few extras that the upgrades gives at what in the UK is around the £200 mark!<br />
My real annoyance is that despite being a registered customer since Photoshop version 3 I rearly if ever get a email from Adobe and like most others learn what Adobe are about to do via the press. Not very customer focused I think you&#8217;ll agree!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Major Changes In Adobe Upgrade Policy On The Way by Further Changes in Adobe Upgrade Policy &#171; Micromail.com Blog</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2011/11/14/major-changes-in-adobe-upgrade-policy-on-the-way/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Further Changes in Adobe Upgrade Policy &#171; Micromail.com Blog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:00:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=288#comment-121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] good news from Adobe; they have decided to push back their changes to the Upgrade Policy announced before Christmas; so for the rest of 2012 customers WILL be able to upgrade from CS3 &amp; CS4.  The following is [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] good news from Adobe; they have decided to push back their changes to the Upgrade Policy announced before Christmas; so for the rest of 2012 customers WILL be able to upgrade from CS3 &amp; CS4.  The following is [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Standard or Enterprise? by Mike Tonoyan</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2010/08/20/microsoft-sharepoint-2010-standard-or-enterprise/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Tonoyan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 14:59:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=24#comment-111</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you, this helps a lot.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you, this helps a lot.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Standard or Enterprise? by willykelly</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2010/08/20/microsoft-sharepoint-2010-standard-or-enterprise/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[willykelly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 07:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=24#comment-110</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Yes. This is possible because SharePoint Server 2010 is one common edition. To enable Standard CAL functionality you use the Standard Setup Key (available via the downloads page on VLSC). To enable Enterprise CAL functionality you use the Enterprise Setup Key. It&#039;s possible to have a subset of users licensed for the Standard + Enterprise CAL, while all users will need to be licensed for the Standard CAL. Since the Enterprise functionality is enabled on the server it is in principle available to all clients and so must be managed by the system administrator for compliance reasons. The Setup Key for Standard CAL functionality can be changed to Enterprise without re-installing SharePoint 2010.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes. This is possible because SharePoint Server 2010 is one common edition. To enable Standard CAL functionality you use the Standard Setup Key (available via the downloads page on VLSC). To enable Enterprise CAL functionality you use the Enterprise Setup Key. It&#8217;s possible to have a subset of users licensed for the Standard + Enterprise CAL, while all users will need to be licensed for the Standard CAL. Since the Enterprise functionality is enabled on the server it is in principle available to all clients and so must be managed by the system administrator for compliance reasons. The Setup Key for Standard CAL functionality can be changed to Enterprise without re-installing SharePoint 2010.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Microsoft SharePoint 2010 Standard or Enterprise? by Mike Tonoyan</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2010/08/20/microsoft-sharepoint-2010-standard-or-enterprise/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Tonoyan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 00:05:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=24#comment-109</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[We currently are using SharePoint 2007 Standard, we would like to upgrade to 2010 Enterprise. Is it possible to upgrade only some of the users to Enterprise with only one server license? Can it be done on the same farm?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We currently are using SharePoint 2007 Standard, we would like to upgrade to 2010 Enterprise. Is it possible to upgrade only some of the users to Enterprise with only one server license? Can it be done on the same farm?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server Licensed Per Processor under SPLA by Mark Hodges</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2011/08/22/windows-server-licensed-per-processor-under-spla/#comment-96</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Hodges]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:28:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=269#comment-96</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I was apparently reading something outdated for sure...went back through the latest and tried to find the working from HP (spla provider) and what they told me was actually incorrect...

my life just got much easier...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was apparently reading something outdated for sure&#8230;went back through the latest and tried to find the working from HP (spla provider) and what they told me was actually incorrect&#8230;</p>
<p>my life just got much easier&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server Licensed Per Processor under SPLA by willykelly</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2011/08/22/windows-server-licensed-per-processor-under-spla/#comment-95</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[willykelly]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=269#comment-95</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I don&#039;t know which SPUR you&#039;re reading but the anonymous use case was removed in about July 2009. Outsourcer/non-outsourcer license was introduced at that time to replace the authenticated/non-authenticated distinction. Now even that is gone, leaving Datacenter as the license of choice for most SPLA scenarios.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know which SPUR you&#8217;re reading but the anonymous use case was removed in about July 2009. Outsourcer/non-outsourcer license was introduced at that time to replace the authenticated/non-authenticated distinction. Now even that is gone, leaving Datacenter as the license of choice for most SPLA scenarios.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server Licensed Per Processor under SPLA by Mark Hodges</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2011/08/22/windows-server-licensed-per-processor-under-spla/#comment-94</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mark Hodges]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 16:54:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=269#comment-94</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Your comment is that &quot;At least this is simple and clear and is a major reason to use Datacenter in most SPLA virtualization scenarios.&quot;

But..does the SPUR not state that you can&#039;t realyl use it for anything except anonymous hosting (like a public website?)

DC is for anonymous use only. You cannot use this server as a platform for applications such as MS
Exchange Server, Windows SharePoint, Office SharePoint, or any third party applications that have
direct or indirect interaction with Windows authenticated services.
Why license Data Center?
DC is typically a backend server. 
For example, if you are running a static website with Web Server (front
end server) you can license DC as a backend server with SQL. This server also allows unlimited virtual
instances.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Your comment is that &#8220;At least this is simple and clear and is a major reason to use Datacenter in most SPLA virtualization scenarios.&#8221;</p>
<p>But..does the SPUR not state that you can&#8217;t realyl use it for anything except anonymous hosting (like a public website?)</p>
<p>DC is for anonymous use only. You cannot use this server as a platform for applications such as MS<br />
Exchange Server, Windows SharePoint, Office SharePoint, or any third party applications that have<br />
direct or indirect interaction with Windows authenticated services.<br />
Why license Data Center?<br />
DC is typically a backend server.<br />
For example, if you are running a static website with Web Server (front<br />
end server) you can license DC as a backend server with SQL. This server also allows unlimited virtual<br />
instances.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Windows Server Licensed Per Processor under SPLA by micromail</title>
		<link>http://blog.micromail.com/2011/08/22/windows-server-licensed-per-processor-under-spla/#comment-90</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[micromail]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Aug 2011 15:40:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.micromail.com/?p=269#comment-90</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fair point. The Microsoft SPLA licensing rules for Windows Server apply irrespective of the virtualization technology. How they apply may depend, as you point out,  on the way that vCPUs are assigned/derived from physical CPUs. Standard Edition requires you to count the physical CPUs AND the vCPUs.  Your core to vCPU assignments &amp; calculations are further reasons NOT to use Standard Edition, I would say!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fair point. The Microsoft SPLA licensing rules for Windows Server apply irrespective of the virtualization technology. How they apply may depend, as you point out,  on the way that vCPUs are assigned/derived from physical CPUs. Standard Edition requires you to count the physical CPUs AND the vCPUs.  Your core to vCPU assignments &amp; calculations are further reasons NOT to use Standard Edition, I would say!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

