OnLive Desktop Now Uses Windows Server 2008R2

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Kevin Parrish
Contributor

Kevin Parrish has over a decade of experience as a writer, editor, and product tester. His work focused on computer hardware, networking equipment, smartphones, tablets, gaming consoles, and other internet-connected devices. His work has appeared in Tom's Hardware, Tom's Guide, Maximum PC, Digital Trends, Android Authority, How-To Geek, Lifewire, and others.

  • Flameout
    hosting without linux? fail
    Reply
  • phamhlam
    I still think that they haven't solve the licensing issue. They need to stop running in circles and solve the problem.
    Reply
  • jhansonxi
    Flameouthosting without linux? failWhile many Windows games have dedicated servers that run on Linux, the clients don't. Until Wine works reliably (and faster) they don't have a choice, especially in a multi-user environment. The only other option is to use OS X with ported versions of the clients but that obviously isn't going to be cheaper, especially since there is only one hardware vendor.
    Reply
  • robertking82881
    Microsoft is has most used os in the entire world and most likely the richest company to date yet they worrie about loseing a few dollors… its not like onlive is not paying the software
    Reply
  • robertking82881
    has*
    Reply
  • captaincharisma
    Flameouthosting without linux? fail
    gaming on Linux FAIL
    Reply
  • fixxxer113
    Normally, if you want to license windows client OS for virtual desktops, every user has to obtain a VDA license. This Licesne is a subscription service that would cost OnLive about $100 a year (without taxes etc.) for every user. So the most probable scenario in order to comply with Microsoft, would be to transfer that cost to the user's subscription. What probably happened was that OnLive probably did not have those licenses for every user and probably did not want that extra cost on their service.

    On the other hand, sending desktops remotely from Windows Server, requires a Remote Desktop Services license for every user (on-off purchase, no subscriptions), which is a lot cheaper.

    Of course working with the Server desktop is not recommended, for functionality and security reasons, but it seems that OnLive did not like the alternative.

    Microsoft is putting a big obstacle in virtual desktop implementations with this subscription model and a lot of companies and users worldwide have complained. This leads to many companies not using these licenses and just hoping never to be audited. IMO, Microsoft should just put virtual desktop rights in every windows license and stop asking for money every year. The whole point of setting up virtual desktops, especially in a large scale, is that is a hell of a lot cheaper than buying the equivalent number of actual PCs.

    There are a lot of free versions of Hypervisor software these days (even Microsoft's own Hyper-V), servers are cheap and powerful, thin clients also. The only thing that messes up the whole model is Microsoft's VDA Licensing...
    Reply
  • extremepcs
    Or people could stop buying toys and get a real computer, making this service irrelevant.
    Reply
  • captaincharisma
    9359161 said:
    Or people could stop buying toys and get a real computer, making this service irrelevant.

    you mean there are people actually using this?
    Reply
  • eddieroolz
    If this is a solution they reached in agreement with Microsoft, then great. It just shows that Microsoft handled this very well.
    Reply