It depends on if MS comes out with a new version of the Product(s) before
the SA expires. If you have to renew the SA it becomes a wuestion of it
what you paid to start with, then additionally paid to renew it is still
less money than buying the product out-right.
We got it when we bought ISA2006,...but so much time passed before TMG came
out that it expired before that and if we add in the cost of renewing the
SA,...it was a waste of money.
But if the new version of a product comes out fairly soon with the SA is
still alive then it is cheaper than buying the new product out-right.
--
Phillip Windell
The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------
"TheScullster" <> wrote in message
news:. uk...
> Hi all
>
> I am looking to upgrade our ageing file/print and exchange servers.
> Previously, we have bought new hardware and o-s/application software and
> run the boxes for 4 years.
> The only changes have been windows updates rather than persistent version
> changes over this time.
> Our servers are managed and supplied by a third party support company.
> We don't have the expertise or spare hardware in-house to be swapping
> servers and migrating data etc (if this is necessary) at each operating
> system version change.
>
> So, given the above scenario, is there any benefit in paying for software
> assurance against simply buying new versions of software at each hardware
> change (4 yearly)?
> We do not intend to upgrade clients for another year at the earliest.
>
> TIA
>
> Phil
>
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
