And you thought dual core was advanced...

[Lemur]

Pretty sure Microsft is not going that route. There are SW makers, however, who do want to charger per core. Typically database stuff, where the SW is residing on a big server. I'll dig up a link if I've got time. Shouldn't affect desktop users in any way or form, however.

Hmm, looks like a lot of these issues surfaced in '04. Here's an article on Microsoft rejecting per-core pricing, even for server software. Looks like the only large vendor getting serious about charging per core is Oracle:

Some vendors are still sticking to per-core licensing, and corporate IT shops caught in contracts with them could be turned off. "One of the issues with multi-core is scalability," he said. "When you get up to 16 or 32 cores, the licensing would be so much, you wouldn't use Oracle."

Reynolds stressed that the issue is only prevalent in a quickly-expanding server setting; for most typical setups aimed at reliability and stability, Oracle still has an advantage. However, Reynolds warned that even though the multi-core licensing mess will have its greatest impact in five or more years, it requires planning now. "It's one of those things where you have to make the policy now," he said, adding that Oracle may change its own policy on per-core licensing at some point, but that real change will be driven only by customers.