Slashdot Mirror
Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home
Maxx writes to mention a ZDNet article about Microsoft's dictum on Vista as a virtual machine. The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.' From the article: "'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says Gartner analyst Michael Silver. 'The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 for Windows Vista Business or US$399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of US$200 for Home Basic or US$239 for Home Premium,' Silver suggested."
This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.
So where do you want to go today?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'
Well, neither is Vista probably.....
My work here is dung.
Since VMware released their server software for free, Microsoft has really had to look out. VMw actually are far before Microsoft in virtualizations, no wonder they worry about this!
There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
"...enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista.."
It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.
Microsoft just continues to prove that they don't get it. Virtualization is where it's at - if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?
Do or do not. There is no try. --Yoda
Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines
I dont understand, what risks?
warez it like every other home user who doesn't get it preinstalled with their next PC purchase. If home users actually had to pay for a tenth of the software they use, they'd all be using Linux or some other free software distribution.
How we know is more important than what we know.
I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.
There was talk of this earlier with the EULA troubles. It's not a security risk, if someone can get it to run virtually then they know enough to not be stupid. They want to you pay the 300-400 if your going to be running it on their competitors os's....microsoft at it's best
Hehe!
"So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
"Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
"Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
"Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
(Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)
Microsoft's stock has been floundering for these past few years since Windows 2000 came on the scene. Microsoft needs Vista to jump-start the amount of revenue they take in. Those who want to use virtualization more than likely will not need to features of versions above MS Vista Home, yet Microsoft is forcing those users to spend more than they want to or need to.
I call bullshit on both counts.
First, technology being immature has never stopped Microsoft before from selling it. And for protecting the consumer, a warning in the EULA would suffice. As in "Microsoft does not guarantee for correct function in a virtual environment". An outright prohibition points to other motives.
Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.
C - the footgun of programming languages
The article's point is that plenty of companies can do this, so long as they spend $60-$100 MORE for a business-class license. Apparently only those capable of spending more money have the cognitive capacities to understand risks involved in VM, and is a kick in the pants to home users who don't buy the same version as their office.
Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the black-on-colour iPod-esque commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
So if my testing team needs to test our software on the home version of windows we can't use our VMWare server which is loaded with images?
great, break out the old POS PC no one wants anymore and we will try to get vista running on it with a VNCServer...THAT will be efficient...
Sounds like they are not allowing visualization on the Microsoft VM technology, and not a blanket statement on all VM technology like VMWare. I thought it was a nice touch that the Vista installer would fail under VMWare but worked just dandy on the Microsoft one. VMWare patched this in the 5.5.3 release earlier this month, so for those wanting to run Vista in a VM make sure you grab the latest greatest build. Also sounds like it will work if you have an MSDN subscription verion.
Foolish, however. In a VM, for demos, etc... I want as few features as possible using up as little RAM as I can. That way the applications I'm running have more resources. I already use Nlite to trim Win2k and Win2003 down substantially. Having something that has the 'ultimate' set of features OOTB is not a good thing. Thank goodness I spend more time on the server side rather than client - what a mess for those testing thick client applications.
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
In serfdom, the Lords own the land, so when the serfs get a good harvest, the Lords can up their rent, and when the serfs have a bad harvest, they can turf them out and keep sheep.
Microsoft seem to be going for a similar strategy, they want Windows always to be the base. Linux as a Virtual Machine on Microsoft is fine, but Microsoft as a virtual machine is not allowed.
If Windows is the base then they can keep their own products in the picture through bundling, dodgy secret agreements, blackmail and so on.
If they lose the base, then they actually have to compete as equals, and Microsoft does not do competition .
My little Linux and tech blog
And, by the way, doesn't rootkits already exists for windows OS family? Maybe they should think more about their problems
-Even more aggressive Windows Genuine Advantage snooping/phoning home. I haven't bothered to pirate your OS yet, if I pass initial activation you can get off my ass. I know my ass is close to m wallet so I see your motives.
-Exceedingly aggressive DRM built into WMP11. Just a thought, consider the consumer and not your media conglomerate buddies at mega-corp once in a while. You tell me to trust you with my digital life but you won't trust me?
-You insist that I am too dumb to run my PC; far too many processes are hidden/poorly explained or locked out of my control. Now you tell me I'm not smart enough to handle virtualization?
I've never been one to believe MS is some kind of innovation power house, but Vista disappoints on almost every level. I've never entirely trusted a Windows OS, but now my OS doesn't trust me. Linux makes a pretty adequate desktop these days and for those who want a totally trouble free experience OS X is still far more consumer friendly than Vista. True that iTunes does present some DRM issues, but they aren't that hard to subvert and the vast majority of files generated on/by OS X and associated applications are widely supported formats. It will be easy to recommend alternatives for the next couple years...
Security? Bah, humbug! This is "value pricing", pure and simple. In short, they figure that if you can afford the virtualisation software, you can afford to pay the extra on Windows. The popular example of this (in American circles, at least) is "Saturday night stay" pricing on airfares, but it may also be familiar to you with regards to ISPs who have a "no servers" rule on domestic broadband. It's not that they can't support servers, really, just that there's usually a difference in ability to pay between those who want to run a server and those who don't know what a server is. This is about creating an artificial price difference to reflect the perceived value of the feature, rather than the cost of the feature. The fact that they call it a "security" matter is just standard disingenuous corporate practice. ("We don't want to admit that we're gouging you, so we'll say we're trying to help you -- with a straight face, no less.")
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
My understanding is that there are only two versions of Windows vista which are allowed to run inside a virtual machine. A special addition for large corperations and the most expensive version available to home users.... Not that this restriction does not apply to using windows as the host OS....
I believe that the reason for doing this is quite simple... A lot of companies are moving towards virtualisation - Microsoft will make sure that the cheapest option is to use an MS Operating system as the host OS. I think that this tactic is an abuse of their monopoly powers. As the restriction really does not make sense in the amount of work that needs to go into their product.
Me when I upgrade to a capable processor might consider buying a cheap copy of windows to run windows software I occasionally come accross... But if they stick to this stupid rule they are not going to see a red cent from me..... I don't want or need the bells and whistles
An operating system running virtually won't "know" it...there is no way to enforce this dictum other than not supporting it, and we all know Microsoft's support sucks for home users anyway.
For my windows home needs I can wait to upgrade the OS at the point where people are throwing away systems with it installed already.
By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,
Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.
So is there such a hack that allows me to do such a printer thing from inside Linux applications like gimp? To send it thru a windows box and windows printer driver?
Printing is the only pain I have about Linux. And this is only because its a common desktop need.
Ultimately, do you really need to virtualize a windows box at home?
Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.
"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."
Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
One of the things that has really gotten my goat with Vista is remote desktop...
The only versions (that you can buy) that include remote desktop (also known as terminal services) are Business and Ultimate. So, just for a single feature that I require I have to fork over a significantly larger sum than I did for XP Professional.
So, if I say wanted some of the features of the normal desktop versions of Vista then i'd have to get Ultimate. For the most part though I think I can do pretty much everything under the biz version with stuff like VLC, windows media encoder etc.
Microsoft, milking you for all you've got.
Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."
Is anyone really surprised? Any market Microsoft cannot dominate they attempt to squash.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
What risks? How is running 4 VM's on one big machine more risky than running 4 real machines?
So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this.
What? You don't have a legal department, and you can't afford to hire a law firm for something as trivial as setting up a virtual machine.
Gee, I guess that means that you won't be able to test the software you are writing against the Vista HOME platform in a cost effective manner. So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.
Microsoft's rule change will result in either increasing your costs, or decreasing your quality of product. either way they are reducing your ability to effectively compete with them in the free market. They are undercutting competition by manipulating the legal rules, as opposed to using direct head to head competition in the free market. Your product may not even compete directly with any of their existing products, but you still form a potential threat. You may be the next Linus Torvalds or David Heinemeier Hansson.
Reducing competition helps to protect their monopoly, or so they believe.
Of course, you may want to contact a lawyer that specializes in Class Action lawsuits. Get them to think of all of the web developers they can represent who are have their product's cost effectiveness reduced by this anti-competitive move from a convicted monopolist who is known to settle lawsuits quickly out of Court. Heck, you could make some law firm rich, and maybe even see a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars in settlement money!
If you're earning enough to buy vista ultimate, why should MS get that money and not, say, Target?
You say this, and yet you do not back up your argument. Microsoft asserts that commercial virtualization systems are not mature enough for broad use, yet such systems have had far more real world use than Vista has had. If virtualization is immature, then by surely the same standards Vista must be too.
One could equally claim that you're conforming with anti-Slashdot groupthink, where people criticise the moderators when they mod up posts why don't personally agree with.
If it just against policy, screw them, ill run it in a VM if i want too. I bought it, i can run it on my C64 if i feel like it.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It is pretty obvious the type of people /. brings in and some opinions are pretty strong here. If you want to see comments that discuss how much they love MS and think vista is going to be super duper you are pobably in the wrong place.
It would be something like being at the Democratic convention and bitching because no one loves Bush.
Algerath
Grandparent was as much BS as Microsoft's lie about virtualization being not mature enough. That makes it as insightful as the topic. And moderation tells how topical comment is. GP was +5 topical if not more because of ironic funny sarcasm or something.
Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
The figures in TFA are percentages, yet the total in the bottom row is a sum of money. How the hell did that happen?
And the total for SQL Server 2000 is twice that for SQL Server 2005 on the same version of Windows. Does upgrading a database really make that much difference? How?
Perhaps there are some clues in the document that you can download from Microsoft. This reveals that 100% of the linux servers were hosting dynamic web sites, but 50% of the Windows servers were hosting static web sites. That must make a big reduction in the Windows support costs. And there were 10 times more Windows servers than Linux servers, so the costs of Linux-trained admins were spread amongst fewer servers, making them seem more expensive per server.
My guess is that this study was done at a Windows-only shop that had been forced to install a few Linux servers for tasks that were beyong the capabilities of Windows, and was therefore spending a disproportionate amount of money supporting a few specialist Linux boxes.
Which version will not require activation?
Whichever one that is will be the one that I pirate.
Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.
This just reminds me of the infamous quote:
This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
Once again Microsoft's attitude is an insult to its customers intelligence. Thank you Microsoft for letting us know that we are morons.
We often refuse to accept an idea merely because the tone of voice in which it has been expressed is unsympathetic to us
I note that they said: 'risks'... plural. Now, I won't pretend I know all of the risks Microsoft sees but the paranoid tin-foil-hat part of me would say that one of those risks is that they don't want OS.X and Linux users running Vista in a VM thus circumventing some of Microsoft's barriers, carefully crafted to prevent OS migration. My less paranoid side tells me they are simply trying to weasel out of having to provide tech support for (how many?) millions of users running Vista Home in a VM. If one calls the help center all they have to do is fall back on the old ' Well you see sir it's like this. If you read the EULA that came with your copy of Windows Vista Home edition you will see that....." routine. It will certainly be interesting to see if Vista Home will actually refuse to boot in a VM or whether this is only a cost limiting exercise.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Not only virtualisation is restricted:
The more restrictions the better.
Deleted
If you want to see comments that discuss how much they love MS and think vista is going to be super duper you are pobably in the wrong place.
No, I don't. I just don't want to see things modded Insightful when they're a trite, kneejerk response. To me anyway the definition of something being insightful is when some actual thought goes into the writing of it...the equivalent of five or so word, peanut gallery heckling doesn't qualify.
I saw the same thing with John Carmack's posts...in one reply he simply used the single word, "Yes," which got moderated +5 Interesting. I don't believe that that is something that excuses should be made for, either.
I propose the "slashdotprod", a USB powered device that gives moderators a hefty jolt for not being independantly subjective. (And you'd have to have one plugged in in order to moderate).
3.3V @ 500mA ain't gonna dissade anyone from moderating badly, so obviously the slashdotprod would have to have some form of flyback circuit or switcher/ladder circuit and accumilate charge over time.
Since robots are getting good at pretty much everything these days, we'll just leave it to them to decide who is subjective and who just tastes of bacon and deserves a good prodding. A few false negatives never hurt anyone until now.
Quick, I'd better patent it before LSI or Microsoft get in there first.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
you must be new here, but congratulations on figuring out the mod system.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
Look: If you buy a legitimate copy of Vista, and then install it on virtual hardware, it'll look to the WGA like you've installed it on multiple machines and it should shut you down for piracy. How are they supposed to monitor everything you do with your hardware if they let you use *imaginary* hardware as well?!?
Be reasonable!
So.. it has come to this
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
You're hardly insightful either. Whine, whine, whine, with no constructive suggestion on how to replace it.
Not only that, the current moderation system totally destroys the continuity of every thread, there are +5 replies to posts buried at -1 where the reply does not quote the post it is replying to, resulting in a meaningless +5 post just hanging there.
I would browse slashdot at -1 nested, but that requires me to reload every page I view (on dialup) and pagination of threads is still broken (probably because of the moderation system).
I would rather read a whole thread in its entirety in nested format so things make sense.
So instead of just crapping on the system like I usually do, how about a suggestion:
Instead of destroying the continuity of threads with a flawed moderation system:
Allow all posts to be rated (0-10 scale) by anyone including ACs. Then instead of totally ruining the continuity of threads by hiding stuff that the reader actually wants so see make a "discussion highlights" page where the top 20 rated posts are displayed, then display the entire thread unmolested with pagination that is not broken so that readers can have some measure of continuity here on slashdot.
Heck its getting to the point where I just might fix it myself, where's that link to the slashcode again? The pagination and thread continuity have been broken horribly for far too long. I guess its won't get fixed unless I do it myself.
Another suggestion, drop the Anonymous Coward bit, Anonymous will do just fine, I can post just as anonymously from a registered account. Registration != non-anonymous.
i whont be upgrading to vista ill just be running linux. i dont wana go running there crippleware called vista. i can see it i change my pcs specs video ram etc and it starts compaling it needs to be activted again and for some reasion ms says nope fu you changed your pc you need a new copy of windows. sorry its not gonna happon if my pc comes with windows or i have a cd there should be no limits on hw may pcs i throw it on aslong as there all mine.
-1, Troll
So, in the interest of security will only Vista Home editions come with condoms?
I find this short-sighted. I'd be of the mind that condoms may, at times, be advantageous in an office environment as well.
If Microsoft is genuinely looking out for the security of us all, then condoms should be packaged with both the Home and Business versions of Vista. The Ultimate edition should perhaps come with ribbed condoms.
Who exactly "shouldn't" get mod points? And what exactly is meta-moderation for do you think? If you don't agree with the moderation then browse at 0 (I do). It really isn't that important what a post is modded as anyway, though I personally am happy if someone considers any of my posts informative or insightful. Most troll and offtopic moderations are correct, and generally other mods I see are correct too (well, there are a few 'funny' moderations of comments that I don't think are funny, one was a really lame/obvious/poorly written one by someone that I suspect was just modded up for having a girl's name.. :s )
which is totally what she said
My system of moderation generally has me locate an interesting thread, and burn 3 or so mod points on all of the interesting posts in that thread, regardless of which side of the argument the poster is on. Must be why I didn't have mod points for a year or so, and only recently started getting them again. But anyhow, I find it is the best way for me to be fair.
Is Microsoft trying to say that if a normal consumer that doesn't appear to understand the risks running a VM will understand the risks after paying $200 for a higher edition of Vista? Does it mean that the more you pay the more you understand the VM technology?
You need a legal department to setup a VM?
Strange how I've never needed one of those for any other OS I have created a VM for in the past.
Which repository do I need to add to get a legal department?
liqbase
Microsoft asserts that commercial virtualization systems are not mature enough for broad use, yet such systems have had far more real world use than Vista has had.
You have to remember what true hubris is.
Their product is immature... and not ready for prime time... therefore all others must be even worse off.
Because MS knows their product is allways "best of class".
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Are you trying to claim that a first release of a MS product is ready? If so, that would be the first time in MS's 30+ years. Statistically (and what I have heard from several ppl inside of MS), I doubt that MS has it ready yet.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Every VM has to have some kind of "virtual hardware". MS can now very well examine them and, when you try to activate it, simply tell you to go away 'cause they don't like your 'hardware'.
You can technically use it in VM, as long as you don't go online. As soon as you do, the system can contact MS and determine that you're not supposed to run on the hardware you're running on. In theory, this could even be built into the system itself (so that it refuses to run on virtual hardware).
There are also a few ways to determine whether you're running in a VM or on a real machine, mostly with an attempted direct access to some hardware I/Os. It's tricky, it requires a little knowledge, but I'm quite sure that MS has at least a few programmers that are above the average Hello World coder.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
FTA: '"So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security," he said.'
Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!
I am new to virtual machines but how does the OS know that it is running in a virtual environment? Isn't the point of a virtual machine to simulate actually running on real hardware? Anyone care to explain?
"'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running Windows products, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Windows. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says analyst. 'They say the only way to be safe is run operating systems with known track records for security such as OSX, BSD and Linux.' Microsoft has suspended all sales of Microsoft operating systems to home users, and instead will be offering OpenSuse CD's. Corporations will also be offered Suse Linux Enterprise instead of Vista as a first choice. Vista will be offered to enterprise customers only after signing a letter of understanding that they are risking their companies livelihood and reputation. "It [linux] is just better," said a Microsoft spokesperson on condition of anonymity.
"It's great to finally see Microsoft taking security seriously" said an anonymous cracker, who's has made quite a living from spambot farms. "I've just been waiting for them to get serious and put me out of business."
Oh, there is a risk. Don't fool yourself, and don't you dare call MS a liar. There is a huge risk. There's the risk that you might be snooping from the outside of the system and break their precious DRM.
A VM is by default at the mercy of its host. For the host, the VM is a normal program that can be handled in any way the host deems appropriate. You have full access to its memory, no matter how protected the OS in the VM wants it to be. You have full control over the drivers it loads, you have absolute power over it. What is usually very hard to do on real hardware, because you would have to use very expensive machinery to 'read' and tap into the signals transfered between the hardware elements, is trivial if the 'hardware' is in fact a few bits and bytes in your (accessable) memory.
That's the risk. Btw, MS, if you spew some BS like that, avoid the word 'risk'. You usually only use it if something YOU want is at stake, it's never used when your user is in danger of being ripped. Then you call it "advantage".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you run Windows in a VM inside a Linux host, would all of the DRM code still be able to control what you were doing ?
Download a warez copy for $0.
To see Microsoft being demonised on Slashdot for engaging in a perfectly normal - nay, fundamental - part of running a business.
Strange how similar antics from, well, pretty much every company on Earth don't attract the same attention.
Indeed. Another interesting snapshot is Comparison with Red Hat.
Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
3.3V @ 500mA ain't gonna dissade anyone from moderating badly, so obviously the slashdotprod would have to have some form of flyback circuit or switcher/ladder circuit and accumilate charge over time.
Say it with me now: CAPACITOR
1. The end user may be to stupid.
2. Worse, the end user may be really fed up with a virus and try Linux (or Mac) and install a virtual machine. The end user then realizes they only boot vista every once in awhile and really do not need the next upgrade of Windows, Office, and other MS junk.
3. The home user is a moron.
-- A computer without Windoze is like a choclate cake without mustard
When Windows was not mature enough for corporate networking (remember Novell), someone should have banned it.
When Windows was not mature enough for creating decent servers, someone should have banned it.
When Windows was not mature enough for the Internet, someone should have banned it.
I guess, customers will be mature enough only when Microsoft kills VM competitors.
And someone suggested that Bill Gates should become President?
Well, Steve Ballmer would make a perfect Dick, that's for sure.
At first I thought "slashdotprod" was some kind of daemon that turns you into a /. professional moderator... then I got the joke. Brilliant idea BTW.
Global warming is a cube.
In theory, you can't, but many virtual machine managers (VMMs) leave apparent traces. For example, it allows screen drawing to be accelerated via a trap mechanism, which essentially lets a guest OS talk to the VMM. VMMs also provide CPUID, hard drive, and PCI device identification that reveal the fact that these devices are virtual. These measures allow you to detect a number of selected VMMs.
I once had a signature.
I think I've read previously on /. (sorry, no ref) that access to at least some DRMd content is completely disabled when running in a VM.
someone had to do it. Thanks to the 'M$ suxx0rz!' crowd for all their creativity as always. Great work, kids. Here's word from the 'alternate lifestyle' that the same counter-arguments keep popping up:
Yes, I run a Windows machine. Because I like it too! *gasp* Wow! Yes, I run a Linux file server with a nice terabyte RAID 5 file system too (well, roughly a terabyte...close enough). I like that too!! Is it because I'm worried about 'windoze beign teh sUx?' No, it's called safe backup. Hardware does die.
If you want to complain about Vista, complain about something real. I dislike that when I install it, it automatically turns on a feature that defragments as I go or when I'm idle. It is using my hardware and wearing on it without my permission, and I didn't have the patience to go and figure out how to turn it off. There. A real complaint. And a good reason to have the file server backup. For me, Vista isn't to the point that I will install it yet, hence I will not install it, hence I don't care. Before I get modded flame-bait, read your own bullshit, folks.
This is so prevent the runaway success that Parallels has become for all the intel mac users. By putting this in the license, and probably with some flimsy second-rate "protection" they make the Parallels be legally forced to play their little game or get a DMCA suit. That's the rub here...Microsoft can FORCE the issue and use police officers if they want. They want customers buying the "upgraded" versions. The worst possible thing that can happen is that developers will make extra sure their products work with Home for all the "Apple" users... and I think Microsoft is trying to put applications into requiring the higher version of windows to even RUN. If all the Apple users make home the default version Microsoft can't continue to shake businesses down.
Pick your favorite ...
I'm disappointed that the EULA won't allow me to run Vista Home using Parallels on my Mac. I guess I won't be paying for a copy of Vista, since I'd be using it in violation of the license agreement anyway. How long will support for Windows XP last? How long can I hold out?
The real question is whether Microsoft has opted to use heuristic based VM detection for license enforcement, or is this a constraint that only lives on paper. If Vista does attempt to detect VMs, then would VMware be within their rights to thwart it?
This is old news. I don't know why it is being reposted.
The excuse is one of incompetence. The incompetence is not on the shoulders of the users but on the Microsoft dimwits that thought it up.
You never say that you are going to make an act illegal just because some do not understand it. Why would it be illegal for those that do?
Total and utter incompetence on Microsoft's part. Very lame excuse.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
I think you meant to type Microsoft true motto:
"Where do you think you're going today?"
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
My take: When the wheels are falling off your empire you make insane decisions like Microsoft is making in the above article. This is definitely a sign of a collapse. I imagine many in Redmond are muttering under their breath - "The emporer has no clothes!" BTW: Just to clarify, you will still be able to install Home editions in VM's for testing IF you are am MSDN subscriber.
Some settling may occur during posting.
The only trouble is that if Microsoft did that, they would be another "background" company like GE,BASF, Siemens, etc... companies that make great yearly profits, and everybody has in their house, but most people don't know by NAME anymore so the stocks don't skyrocket, but INVESTORS know about it make lots of money!! Of course what's more pitiful is that somebody that was at one time the RICHEST man in the world is still trying to get that back!!! He's got more than enough money to buy an island somewhere and sit on the beach all day! OR at least do something interesting with his money like Paul Allen or Steve Woz...funny how they are HAPPY even though they don't have so much money anymore... There comes a time to quite while your ahead.... kind of like when Michael Jordan "un-retired" a second time... it was cool, but he was a legend & millionaire.. give a new kid a chance. Bill seems so afraid of letting go...
Microsoft is fragmenting their market even further?
What to do? What to do?
Ah, I'll just run Windows 2000 Professional on the few 'doze machines I keep going.
need to start making some noise about anti-competitive practices. They have provided platforms capable of running Windows, and Microsoft is actively taking steps to prevent them from being able to run Windows. Not for technical reasons - after all, a few hundred bucks extra gives you the right, but for pure commercial motives.
Microsoft isn't stupid. MacOSX Intel version provides for the first time in many a year a true competitor on the home desktop. [rant]Why the *&#! can't Edgy Eft successfully execute half the packages available through Synapse! And they want normal home users that don't even know what a command line prompt is to use it! I think not! [/rant]
Anyway, as I was saying, anyone running MacOSX with Windows in a virtualised environment is very likely going to use that Windows environment less and less. I think that possibility scares Microsoft a whole lot - hence the change to the EULA
This was clarified several weeks ago.....and is actually pretty clear in the EULA.
Let me summarize at the beginning: MS is giving us MORE freedom than we legally had in the past. With Vista Business and Ultimate, you may install a SINGLE license on both the host and on a VM running on that host. With the Home versions, you may not use a single license more than once. You CAN buy two copies of Vista Home and install one license on the host and another within a VM running on that host.
Currently, with Windows XP Pro, you do NOT have the right to use a single license on the host and within a VM.
***********
Windows Vista Home Basic/Vista Home Premium
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
***********
The above states that you may NOT use the same license within the VM that is in use on the host. You are perfectly free to buy a copy of Vista Home Basic and install it within a VM running within a seperately licensed copy of Vista (or within a VM hosted on XP, 2000, 98, Linux, OS X, et cetera.)
***********
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
*********
The above actually says that you may use ONE license of Ultimate on both the host and within the VM on that host. This gives you and I MORE freedom than we had under previous MS licensing terms. I cannot find it at the moment, but, I seem to recall that MS actually intends to allow us to run one license on the host and on up to four VMs within that host, simultaneously.
*********
Windows Vista Business (Essentially the same as Ultimate)
f. Use with Virtualization Technologies. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so,
you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights
management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content
or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights
management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk
drive encryption.
*********
You could have said this a while ago but at this point the new DHTML experimental threaded view is wonderful. You can even change the treshold at which you browse with the toolbar on the side. Maybe you are not "willing to test slashdot's new discussion system" (see the checkbox just after the post contents)?
It does take quite a bit of time to load but once it's there it works great.
My english is sow-sow. Sowhat?
where do you want to go today?
into a virtual machine
I'm sorry, but I can't allow this
shure you could!
uhm... well... alright, I don't want to allow this
but I bought you, you have to do what I say!
oh really, you think so? well, read the EULA... goodbye
disabling your license key...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Just how dumb does Microsoft think we are to give us a line like that. Stuff that's this easily proven wrong in a sentence or two shouldn't be uttered by one of the world's biggest companies.
Wrong how? How many of those home consumers who would want to run VM's in the first place have likely just come home from the very enterprises who are the only people smart enough to run Vista on a VM? Likely most of them. They see it at work, know how it works, have the ability to talk to the people who make it work -- or are the people who make it work -- and want to have the same safe, secure computing at home.
Truth is: THIS IS MICROSOFT BEING ANTI-SECURITY FOR THE LIKELY MAJORITY OF THEIR USERS! Yes I intended to shout this to the hills and beyond. This is a huge number of their consumers they obviously don't care about at all -- unless you're willing to pay lots more money to them to prove your competency (and I'm obviously not talking about common sense mental competency here).
I guess they intend to cede the home VM market to Apple, once Apple can figure out how to make VM plug-and-play for the masses. Apple isn't there yet, either, but at least the field is now wide open to them.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Indeed, why provide supporting evidence for your argument when you can simply dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as unintelligent? Resorting to logical fallacies is a rather underhanded way of winning an argument, and doesn't work when people start call your bluff. Assuming, of course, that it is a deliberately ploy and not just the results of a particularly stupid mind.
But if you do have a credible argument, then by all means lets hear it.
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
Even this most basic freedom will now be denied to Dozers... Why do they stand for it?
In a press release just issued by Microsoft, it was found that virus creators, spam bots, trojan password stealers, and other malware use several "move" commands in x86 assembly. To protect the home users from such malicious software, Microsoft will retroactivly remove the ability to execute these instructions from all computers running their software. MS Vice President of user security was quoted, "It's the only way to protect those unwilling to give us the appropriate amount of money for the luxury of using our... I mean, THEIR, computers."
The EULA doesn't allow you to use WMDRM (i.e. protected Windows Media files) nor BitLocker (i.e. encryption of an entire volume) from within a virtual machine. I don't know whether it's technically enforced. If it isn't, I wouldn't be surprised if an update will begin enforcing it.
Microsoft changed their EULA so users can have unlimited license transfers: http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/arc hive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-ret ail-licensing-terms.aspx
will have MSDN subscriptions, and the OSes you get through MSDN do not have this license restriction. It's a non-issue for software development houses.
that, but what they claim is technologically absurd. It like saying:
- you can't run vista if your name is Bob and you have a cat
- you can't run vista if your computer has previously run linux
- etc
Vista is a sequence of bytes. Vista can control what the bytes will do. It cannot control who will run the bytes. VM is just hardware. If the OS cannot detect it's being VM'd, it can't really set any legal rules. It is likesaying "I don't allow God to do X". But God created you and he can do whatever He wants.
So Microsoft is basically saying that, because you're too stupid to run a VM, you shouldn't. You are not too stupid, however, to handle their bloatware OS by itself, because we all know that users perfectly understand the general risks of Windows. That's really great. And just what "risk" are we talking about here? You risk not being a huge security hole? You risk that performance hit and not being able to run the almighty Aero? You risk not being able to see their lame 3D crap? What?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
I love the smell of burning karma in the morning.
biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
Happily you don't need a lawyer as the only limitation on what you can do with Vista is Copyright law.
EULAs are 100% worthless and unenforcable.
Well at least in Denmark and I suspect much of the EU.
You see we have a set of restrictions on confusing marketing, you can't sell something and then later try to impose extra limitations on the buyer.
If MS wants to make the EULA assholery binding then they will have to present the terms BEFORE the sale takes place otherwise we are free to ignore it completely.
The same is true for language, if the EULA is written in english then it's 100% non-binding.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
We're all gonna use pirated Ultimate versions anyway.
At least at home.
The ones that pass WGA, are pre-activated and won't even ask for a serial when self-installing.
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
apt-get install leeches headache ulcers loss_of_income
The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
I author free software and I assure you that I don't have/want an MSDN subscription. I just want to occasionally boot an OS I paid for in a VM for testing. The real issue is that the restriction is silly.
In that same vein, I'd also say most users don't understand the risks involved in email, either. Running Vista in a virtualized environment in the home may be just the thing for parents with young kids to help minimize the risks to their machine when the kids are cruising around online.
Give 'em a VPC of their own that can't have any data saved to it on reboot, and presto! you've created a way that helps keep the host OS reasonably secure from malware.
I know a lot of parents that would understand that concept.
Prohibiting this technology in the name of safety just doesn't make sense.
Running 'Nix is like owning a Lightsaber. It's "a more elegant weapon for a more civilized time."
There are commercial tools that do this and malware are starting to use the techniques to protect against antivirus dissection as well. See http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1871&rss
Wow people, just IGNORE the EULA!! Its that damn simple. "But that wrong" you reply. Perhaps, but what do you say about microsofts tactics? Grow some backbones and ignore the bastards. Microsoft and all other oppressive companies should go down in flames. Bye bye Bill!!
It seems very strange to see such high prices for the software on the street when it must be far cheaper for computer makers.
...
For instance, Dell, last time I looked, sold a $299 PC. Are they paying $199 for Windows XP Home, like we do in stores?
Obviously not. I've heard it's more like $25, and that sounds about right.
I'd love to get a $99 version of Windows Vista so I could take my eventually-to-be-purchased MacBook Pro and use Windows on it. That's still a huge markup over what the PC maker pays.
But to pay $299, the cost of a new PC, just to run it on my MacBook? That seems a bit off, doesn't it?
Now, I would think that if I bought my Macbook Pro, and paid $299 for Vista, Microsoft would be making about ten times what it does from the PC maker.
Is Apple soon to be a Windows OEM?
I guess they can't be technically, because the licenses require no alternative operating systems on the computers
I would think Microsoft would be pretty happy to see these Mac customers and their full-margin purchases. Frankly, I feel like a sucker. I'd probably just buy a new PC for testing if it wasn't for the fact that I like to go out into the park and the coffee shop with my computer, and Parallels will let me keep doing that.
D
I fail to see the issue.
Home editions are preinstalled on consumer boxen. I have never, ever worked for a company that ran home editions of Windows, especially after the networking nightmare with XP.
I can understand a home hacker wanting to run a virtualized system, but I don't see the retail market value for a software product being built to run on HE. The product should run the same whether under a virtualized OS or not. You don't make direct calls to the virtualization layers.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Input:
The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'
Output:
Figured out we haven't to make deactivated Windows Vista on virtual machines image copies for to stop clever home user pirates. The version after Vista will have improved protection of copy to prevent this for enhancement of user experience.
I didn't have mod points for a year or so, and only recently started getting them again.
Wow! You mean there's hope?
I haven't had mod points for more than 36 months, but I've maintained excellent karma and I metamod daily.
'nuff said. :-) Don't forget that karma is just that: the standing a person has in our community, affecting the default visibility of its posts.
I agree with you -- most of _my_ posts stay in their +1 default moderation for ever. But I get really mad when I see someone posting something really funny and on-topic, and getting moderated down, normally "-1,OT". So, I do my part to protect those whenever I have mod points... something that isn't happening for a long time, for some reason -- maybe _you_ metamoded me down
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Would someone with mod points please mod parent as "+1 insightful" to balance out the "-1 troll" so others can get on with modding it appropriately as "funny"?
And thus I summarize the Slashdot Way to Enlightenment.
I was just in a CellularOne office yesterday (large Cell provider in the US). The salesperson attempting to change phones on my account was using little gray Dell machine with Windows XP Home edition stickers conspicuously plastered on the side.
I have no idea whether or not this is a good idea in general, but it appears to work for them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
let's say you're developing software which could result in the system becoming unstable, something like a kernel module for linux (not sure what that is for windows computers). if you can virtualise the operating system, you can see more error messages and restart it quickly to try again.
clear?
howie
Ah well, if MS continues to shoot themselves in the foot then the more users that Linux may get. Unfortunately, it can also take a lawyer to understand the implications of the GPL.
See my journal, I write things there
Btw, I hate home editions too, but you would be supplied and how many people running SOHOs get themselves boxed in by buying PCs with XP home preloaded.
See my journal, I write things there
I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one.
Then don't code for an OS with draconian license restrictions.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
When I was at Bell Canada's offices, I saw exactly the same thing- mass-bought Dells with XP-Home stickers on the side. Guess what? They were all running network-imaged copies of XP Professional. They didn't even bother to remove the XP Home stickers.
Why bother? An XP Home licence is not worth the paper it's printed on for enterprise consumers.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.
Here is what the story 'forgets' to mention. You can run it in a VM for development purposes. You just can't run it as a MAIN OS in a VM.
Make sense? MSDN subscribers have been running it in MS's Own VM software for over a year now, and YES it is ALLOWED.
People need to find better things to do on slow news days. How about another article on the OSX exploits, or how insecure Oracle is compared to MSSQL?
Business at usual at Microsoft.
Oh you need A B and C.... Find the version get the version, 20 gets you one, but that's not good enough, 40 gets you two but no no no. 100 gets you them all but you feel like fool, and choose!
Of course the prices are more like 100 to get the first. Seriously though Microsoft can become a great company with three steps.
1. Get rid of all the versions, give 2 versions, one for corporate one for home, both versions are fully unlocked.
2. Drop the prices, 100 for the home, 200 for the corporate, you're already doing OEM around that price, however by doing this people with XP will buy it rather then sticking around with the old version.
3. Drop the DRM, drop the litigation, and make sure the customer comes first ALWAYS. ALWAYS, A customer wants to change something and they do it, don't get pissed. If they break your system and do something illegal get pissed, but just because they changed the system so it says "microsoft sucks" How does that hurt you?
IF you do all three of those things any company can grow and become respected. Of course Microsoft is so caught up in pleasing Hollywood, they are playing the "PS3" game, and we can see what a great machine the PS3 after focusing so much on the nextgen DVD wars. They are an OS, not a home media center, not a Gaming platform, an Operating system, it should be useful as all the stuff, but a focus on one hurts all the rest...
.......So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this......
Is this restriction of home users a legal or a technological one? EULA's are not worth the electrons it takes to display them anyway. IF MS sells any packaged version of VISTA, and I buy a copy, I can legally do with it whatever I want, consistent with COPYRIGHT laws. I can flush it down the toilet, install it on my washer or on a virtual machine.
If it is a technological restriction, does that also mean the Mac users are not able to run it under Parallels or other such software that run Windows as just another of many applications under OSX? If MS sells the home version in stores and it has these technical limitations, they better clearly label the product's, otherwise there may be many upset consumers who will return the program to the store. It seems that if real hardware can run any program, it would be quite difficult technically to prevent virtual or emulated hardware from doing so.
Why would MS want to do this? It seems that they would sell more copies of VISTA if they let anyone buy and run their software without all these strings attached.
All theory is gray
If you're running any OS in a VM, then isn't it by definition NOT your "main OS"?
This distinction makes absolutely no sense to me.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
"because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'"
I'd say if anyone knows what a crap product Virtual PC is, it'd be Microsoft. I think you should listent to them.
Stay away from Virtual PC! Listen to Microsoft! Use VMware or Parallels instead.
#DeleteChrome
People who want to run it virtually are adept enough to find the business edition or whatever torrent. Microsoft's douchebaggery is nothing more than an annoyance. 3 software crackers and such.
Macintosh is such a small blip that Microsoft isn't going to bother doing anything about it. In fact, I suspect that they're going to make a deal with Parallels. This is directed against virtualizing Windows in the enterprise, particularly using Linux servers; Microsoft sees their per-CPU licenses floating away.
The performance overhead of virtual machines, particularly when it comes to video, makes it unlikely that people will use this for home use anyway. Half the security and reliability problems in Windows are caused by the demand for frames-per-second, give up more for the dubious protection of a virtual machine? I don't think so!
This move is kind of gutsy, especially as a lot of Windows users see Vista as nothing more than a more restrictive and prettier looking XP. Few home users actually use a virtual environment to do any real work (or use a virtual environment to begin with) because of performance and resource issues. Instead they are more likely to be using a virtual environment to test drive Vista before bothering to install it over their current system. When they go to do this and are greeted with a "sorry, to protect you from yourself, please buy a $2000 enterprise copy of this software before installing it in your virtual environment" does it really give them that "cool, I have to install this on my system" feeling? Maybe the reason is that too many people were running Vista in Virtual Machines and discovering that it wasn't worth switching and Microsoft is gambling that the customers they loose by restricting virtual installs will be offset by the customers they don't loose by letting them see how pointless upgrading to Vista is? You have to wonder how long it will be before Microsoft pushes down a patch to Windows XP and 2000 users preventing usage in Virtual machines for non $2000+ or above licenses.
You have to wonder how long it will be before Microsoft pushes down patches to Windows XP and 2000 home to prevent usage in a virtual environment.
First of all, this is a crock. Whatever their reasons are for not wanting people to run the crippleware versions of vista in a VM, you can rest assured that "maturity" and "security" have nothing to do with it.
But in any case what difference does it make? Microsoft has already tried to tell people that they are not allowed to use VNC with windows, but last time I checked no one listened. If anyone did they're a schmuck for kowtowing to the demands of a company that is dependent upon their business.
I'm not planning on running vista until I have to. I don't trust 1.0 versions of Microsoft's stuff, and I'm not enthused about having to buy a bleeding edge computer just to run what is supposed to be a mainstream operating system.
But if and when I do get around to running vista, I'm not going to refrain from running it under VMware just because Microsoft tells me I can't. I spend money, I buy a product, I use it as I see fit. If Microsoft thinks they can stop me then they're welcome to try. The only one who is going to lose is them. I'm not a soccer mom who thinks that AOL is the internet. I don't NEED to buy or use ANYTHING that Microsoft sells.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
Perhaps a wide ball, but inside a VM Vista won't have full access to the world, in particular native access to physical TCP/IP running out of the machine. [Cr|H]ackers could stop Vista phoning home, and even auto-installing updates with their new EULAs that the user probably wouldn't get to read anyway...
Apparently Microsoft doesn't remember what happens when they intentionally prevent their operating system from running on third party platforms.
I would be considered an "IT professional", have used virtualization since 1998-1999 or so, and I don't understand the "risks" behind running in a virtual machine either perhaps? What risks are they? License non-compliance? Activation problems?
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Unfortunately not all comparison of stock values are so rosy. Microsoft outperforms Redhat on the 3 month, 6 month and 1 year. Sure you can cherry pick to make it looks otherwise but unless you have a time machine Microsoft has the better performing stock.
Just to prove my point, I noticed that the parent went up to +5 until the exact juveniles that I was referring to found it and modded it down. It demonstrates that they know exactly who they are.
now, only if Taco would read this ... ;-)
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
What in hell are people doing running Vista Home on a VMWare image anyway? At work, I have VMWare running multiple instances, but there *are* inherent dangers in doing so. If your image gets corrupted, there's no recovery path. It's not like recovering a HD.
In any case, Vista Business is more of what you'd want to run in a VMWare image. It probably allows for domain authorization, unlike the Home Editions.
Couldn't they at least try to think of a plausible sounding excuse? Or maybe even try honesty... say "we won't let you run it on a virtual machine because that way we make it harder for people trying to reverse engineer our os"? Or how about "because you might be running linux under it all, and we want to crush linux"? It would be refreshingly honest at the least.
If you're running any OS in a VM, then isn't it by definition NOT your "main OS"?
People run VMs all the time so they can run applications that their OS cannot run. For example a Linux installation running WindowsXP in a VM so they can run MS Office natively for work.
Maybe 'main' isn't the best term, but the point is that it is being used under virtualization for doing work along side the default OS install and not just used for testing or devleopment.
Vista has crazy driver signing stuff for both the 32 bit version and the two 64 bit versions. In the 64 bit versions, unsigned drivers are not allowed at all. In the 32 bit version, unsigned drivers are allowed, but if you an unsigned driver, you will be locked out of DRM'd media.
This is all about their Protected Audio Path initiative. Microsoft knows that if it is possible to write drivers anonymously, then someone will write a fake sound card driver that dumps everything to disk. By requiring signing, there is now a $500/year price tag for driver development, and there is no longer anonymity. If you make such a driver, VeriSign has your name and address for the RIAA's legal complaint.
VMs are an easy way around this driver signing problem. If you use virtualization, then you don't need to load a custom kernel driver - you just intercept the sound card writes entirely. A program on the host alongside the VM monitor, or the VM monitor itself, can record anything it gets from the guest OS. If some song or movie is only released in Microsoft's Vista DRM format, as certainly they will eventually do, they don't want the song to leak because a good DRM system would attract record companies away from Apple. However, all it takes is for someone with 2 Vistas in VMs buying that song twice, and it's out all over the Internet unencrypted. *
Having a strong DRM system gives Microsoft a competitive advantage over Apple, because it attracts record companies to them instead. The record companies will use Vista's DRM as leverage in negotiations with Apple ("Why should we go with you when Microsoft has strong protections for our intellectual property?"). Apple knows this, and I strongly suspect that Leopard will have equal enforced driver signing due to this and AACS.
* Record song using each VM. Binary compare them. Where a bit is different, select one or the other randomly. Bye bye watermark. Microsoft has too many customers to embed watermarks that can identify 2 collaborators.
Melissa
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.
Oh no, not more substandard software!
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
I got AOE3 and the installer required XP. I thought that was a bunch of crap, so I did some Googling and it turns out you just need to install a library (don't remember what the name was offhand) and doing Start -> Run -> J:\setup.exe /a
/a option, it skips the OS checking part of the install and just asks you where you want to put the game. Haven't tried this with other games, it might only work with AOE3. YMMV.
With the
Ignore Vista all togather...........
Hell, Microsoft ignores their own EULA's when it suits them, a la Windows Refund Day.
Sorry, except for testing purposes for Microsoft and others, I entirely deal with the home and SOHO markets and I have no MSDN subscription here. Frankly, it's way out of my financial reach and will remain so for the forseeable future unless I come up with the killer app of the century (not likely). The whole situation is very strange in light of Microsoft rolling out the Express line of development tools to rekindle their 'Golden Age of Visual Basic' again. With free virtualization software from both major providers, free development tools, yet requiring an MSDN subscription to test in a virtual environment for software targetted at the home market, this does not make sense. Then again, we are talking about Microsoft where what one unit is trying to do frequently is in opposition to what another unit is doing.
"[I]t is a wise man who admits the limits of his knowledge or skill, and that pretending either causes harm." --Terry Go
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that short term performance is a better indicated than long term? For long term investments, the 3 month or 1 year is not worth looking at.
Computational Chemistry products and services.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I was there to talk with the head of Mobility IT- it's not at all a difficult or convoluted mess. Purchasing buys say 5,000 Dells, (which come with XP Home), for 799 each or whatever. Purchasing calls up Microsoft and buys 5,000 XP Pro licenses. Provisioning provisions those 5,000 Dells with a remote install of XP Pro with a hashed computer ID in Active Directory, and then just applies all 5,000 XP licenses to those newly activated 5,000 machines. (or it may be done by hardware ID- I forget.)
The fact is, you licence the machines as soon as they come in the door. There's no mess, no fuss, and since they need to be network provisioned anyway, (as would any other type of system), linking the provisioning to the licensing is just common sense.
On the server side I imagine it's more complicated- but not by much.
The reason, of course, they use XP Pro is for Active Directory; can you imagine any system more critical for a real Windows-based network?
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Performance problems won't be an issue for too much longer. Hardware virtualisation support and better video drivers for use with VMs will make the problem "go away", so long as you're willing to purchase enough RAM, and RAM is "cheap" now.
I've had people assure me that virtualization overhead is "negligable" like this for, well, 20 years now. It used to just be the mainframe weenies doing it, now everyone is...
Even if RAM is "cheap", it's not "free", and besides Blizzard and the rest of the game companies want to use that RAM for their own purposes, and because you want the most FPS you're going to want to give it to them.
And it's not just RAM, there's CPU time (you're running multiple operating systems, each with their own scheduling properties - reminds me of Apple's "cooperative multitasking" that made each application part of the scheduler... and made NeXTstep on a 68030 more responsive than OS/9 on a G3 at 5-10 times the clock speed) and all kinds of other resource conflicts, not to mention the lack of hardware memory protection inside video cards to keep the various operating systems from treading on each other's toes.
Cisco firewall/routing hardware to minimize malware and enable system isolation?
LDAP directory services?
Kerberos identification and authorization?
AndrewFS drive cache/image to reduce network transfers?
In other words, I look at it in terms of "what do I need to do to protect the data center" from the Windows-based network. I've never seen an AIX, Solaris, HP-UX, AS400, or mainframe taken out by a virus, much less attacking the rest of the intranet.
I have seen it many times with Windows boxen.
Desktops should participate in the network, not control it.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
But what you miss is that without those desktops working correctly, all of the above systems (other than LDAP, since AD is basically being used as LDAP in this case) become aboslutely pointless. The desktop is the reason, the desktop is the driving impetus. There's no point in having piles and piles of fancy silicon to defend a network... that doesn't do anything. Or exist.
Moreover, I don't know exactly what their mission-critical stuff is running on, (since I don't work there- I just know people who work in relatively high-up positions) but I would doubt it's even that. From what I've heard, their mission-crit stuff (which is basically switches, since their billing systems and stuff don't even have online backups) runs a completely custom-made codebase.
Everything datacenter-wise, like billing systems and provisioning, don't have backup systems, and they regularly take them down for almost a dozen consecutive hours at a time. The reason being, I think, is that the switches can operate totally independently, and can/do cache all the data when they're not uplinked; when they re-establish the link, they just burst upload all of the data and re-synchronize the longer-term systems in the datacenter.
These are, quite frankly, not systems that require those enormous protection methods. They have offline backups taken every day, IIRC.
That said: I can't imagine how you'd spread a virus on that network. Everything is centralized and run via Terminal Server or Citrix. Their external firewall is rediculously overprotective. It's fucking impossible to get anything done, even when that's just visiting slashdot. Everything work-related can be accessed from Citrix, and if it isn't work related... good luck.
*mutter*
I'm rambling...
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
.... are useful for speculators only.
Any person (or most importantly institution) should be questioning the long term numbers and bussiness model of MS.
It is no coincidence that the may be preparing to be sue happy. In the US that is the mark of a failed company nowadays.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
USB fobs.
Whatever.
Find your solution, but don't bloddy annoy me if I already paid you.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
If your hobby is running Windows Vista (for which you paid) MS does not allow you to do it just because.
There is absofuckinglutely no technical reason whatoever to stop virtualization as a hobby.
If I paid form my VM software, I paid form the cheapest MS OS, why the fuck should I tno be allowed to run it?
There is no sane or decent explanation for this.
Not that I care, but frankly some people around here should be more demanding and discriminating.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can still buy the artificially expensive stuff and do all the necessary hackery if you know how.
They are artificially trying to squeze more money out of prospective customers.
If anything this is yet one more incentive not to buy their software (anybody that understand VM technology will be capable to understand the stinker MS is trying to pull out with this nonsense).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
My experiences are a tad different. Massive, massive 5-nines systems. Remote hot failover sites. Online backups. Hardware drive management systems. Distributed identification providing global corporate single-signon. Pretty much every major vendor in the data center, all tied together, coordinated, cooperating, and protected from malware as much as possible.
I helped write and debug core services where failure is not an option. For example, a Bell Canada system used to monitor and manage the national networks. Banking. Investment. Manufacturing.
Downtime and data errors are not an option. Annual forced failures to verify that hot-failover sites function. Yanking power, networks, drives, and systems during testing to ensure resiliancy and recoverability.
Windows is just a glorified X-terminal that happens to do word processing.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Humm. I don't know. All I can say is that I know (without being too specific here and getting anyone in trouble) is that Bell's in a shitload of trouble. I've seen the status reports on the code they're working on now, and it's pure shit- upgrades that can't be uninstalled, patches that break critical functionality, patches delivered late, code that just doesn't run.
I've been there when they've had the network offline from 10 PM Saturday night to 8 AM Sunday morning- and they don't even have the proper manuals there for the test cases they're running. The code is just that flawed.
And guess what? It's running on production systems anyway, because they don't have a choice.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that investors only look at long term performance with no regard to how the stock has been doing recently? Also if you're just going for the maximum data for long term performance have a look at lifetime of RHAT vs MSFT. Microsoft's stock is more stable, RedHat is volatile when it has losses they are large and long (often taking over a year to recover from) and currently RHAT is starting a downturn which MSFT is on an up swing. I'm a full time Ubuntu user by choice, but if I were to look at investment purely for the financial gain my money would be on Microsoft.