Am I right in assuming that MS desktop applications are all licensed on a per-device basis? We have 70 licenses for Project which are available to users coming through a Citrix infrastructure, with 1900 endpoints. Now, given that each endpoint logs on to a Citrix server where Project is available as a streamed app, is it correct that I would need 1900 licenses for Project, even though the application is restricted on a per-group basis to 70 users only?
A document I received from AppSense seems to confirm these suspicions. I could use Appsense's Application Manager suite to restrict the execution of Project to 70 named devices, which apparently would conform with Microsoft's per-device licensing rules, but this would also create a big issue with my current client's push towards hot-desking as a solution for its mobile employees. Is there any way of complying with MS's per-device licensing rules in a Terminal Services environment where mobile users are required to log on at any machine, or will I have to a) bite the bullet and shell out for 1900 licenses, or b) restrict my endpoints to 70 "Project-enabled" workstations? I also have my suspicion that users' home machines with access to the Project application via VPN may also be classed as endpoints by MS for licensing purposes. Is this also correct? TIA, JRR -- "On two occasions...I have been asked, 'Pray, Mr Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." *IMPORTANT: This email is intended for the use of the individual addressee(s) named above and may contain information that is confidential, privileged or unsuitable for overly sensitive persons with low self-esteem, no sense of humour or irrational religious beliefs. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying of this email is not authorised (either explicitly or implicitly) and constitutes an irritating social faux pas. Unless the word absquatulation has been used in its correct context somewhere other than in this warning, it does not have any legal or no grammatical use and may be ignored. No animals were harmed in the transmission of this email, although the kelpie next door is living on borrowed time, let me tell you. Those of you with an overwhelming fear of the unknown will be gratified to learn that there is no hidden message revealed by reading this warning backwards, so just ignore that Alert Notice from Microsoft. However, by pouring a complete circle of salt around yourself and your computer you can ensure that no harm befalls you and your pets. If you have received this email in error, please add some nutmeg and egg whites, whisk and place in a warm oven for 40 minutes.* ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ --- To manage subscriptions click here: http://lyris.sunbelt-software.com/read/my_forums/ or send an email to [email protected] with the body: unsubscribe ntsysadmin
