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.

[drone]

Microsoft rejected per-core pricing for per-CPU pricing for its server software, such as SQL Server and BizTalk Server, and other software such as Windows XP. The decision means software prices won't increase based on the number of cores on a chip. For example, licensing SQL Server on a dual-core chip would be the same as the price of a license on a single-core chip.

"If Microsoft had come out like IBM and Oracle, the open source community would have had a field day," says Jonathan Eunice, president of research firm Illuminata. "Microsoft has dodged a competitive bullet there."

While users are happy that the dual-core decision won't affect licensing prices, reaction was muted because many users have lingering issues with CPU-based pricing, which they contend is a penalty for the improved performance of more-sophisticated hardware.

"I think everything is still status quo," says Matthew Bailey, LAN engineer for CSK Auto in Phoenix, which operates Checker, Schucks and Kragen auto parts stores. "The per-processor pricing is a strategy that most people don't like. It penalizes you for buying more processing power."

While Microsoft's licensing obviously disagrees with that assessment, it's not taking the same angle on dual-core technology.

I think this is what I heard. Cores within a processor are free, extra processors means more licenses are necessary. Which means that this 4x4 would require 2 XP licenses.