Why should anyone be surprised that Microsoft's Software Assurance does not save them money? The only thing that the program assures is the steady flow of money into Microsoft coffers. When I looked at Software Assurance on behalf of a client a couple of years ago, I could see no written guarantee that the client would ever get anything for money spent, only vague promises. So I recommended that the client save some money by not opting for Software Assurance. All the benefits accrue to Microsoft, none of any substance to the client.
As we now see with Vista, just like earlier Microsoft operating systems, the costs in hardware and manpower to upgrade a computer to run Vista adequately are substantial, if the computer can even be upgraded at all. So the "free" upgrade to Vista under Software Assurance represents a tiny fraction of the overall costs of a Vista upgrade.
Software Assurance is a lot like white-washing fences.
Post new comment