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."
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.
> but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it.
You've bought a license to use a product, not the product itself, apparently. The product is a disk. You can do whatever you like with that until you stick it in a computer, then the license kicks in.
The problem is not the technology, it is the licensing. Every time you change your vm machine (memory , network, disk size) vista will conclude it will have to be activated again. After some activations (maybe 1! ) the key will be flagged and you cannot activate NOR can use the key in host machine it was intended for.
The licensing problem is the exact reason vmware did not support XP fully at the start, vm machines needed to be activated again, leading to support nightmares.
As a workarround you can always evalute software 30 days in your vm... since the activation is not mandatory for 30 days.
Do not think too hard about this..... you will explode....
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
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.
What are you talking about? They are not testing that the product works in a virtualized environment. They are testing that it works on Vista Home. The software is deployed from the development machine onto the virtual machine that is in a 'clean' state. Testing is done, and then the virtual machine can be reset back to a clean state a lot quicker than re-imaging the hard drive of a physical machine. The final verion(s) will be tested on a physical machine after they are happy with the results on the virtual machine.
This is obviously not how you develop fast action games, but it has been a real boon for testing other types of applications.
Not only virtualisation is restricted:
This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.
- live-in-Mexico fee? Hmmm. Now I'M pissed off. Plus, what will be the distinct benefit of paying for it? Will it be easier to use than the pirated version? NO! Maybe they should just buy one license of Pro, and install it alongside an old copy of Win2k in parallels, and fuck Microsoft.
This is why I allow my friends to run windows. They ask me, "why do you run linux? it's so hard." And all I can say is that I notice the inherent problems with Windows, and they bother me more that the inherent problems in Linux. That doesn't mean that everyone should use Linux, because as people point out, it's 'hard.'
Directly relating to what you're saying: Yes, only people this inconveniences are going to complain. When I worked in an Internet cafe in Mexico right after XP came out, we purchased licenses for all our boxes. When we upgraded the equipment, we realized that we were not afforded the flexibility we needed by paying for the OS, and our profit margins being small enough to preclude any real exploratory legal action, we just pirated the software. Not moral, but there was no other option at the time.
Now they're going to be installing all Macs, because if a user needs Vista, they can just run a VM. Oh, wait. They need to buy Vista PRO? For $300 + resale + import tariffs + extra-special-we're-billing-you-again-because-you
[this message brought to you by someone who has had to run a few businesses around microsoft's decisions. take it with a grain of salt]
Please stop stalking me, bro.
Looking at an Microsoft EULA you'll see the following text:
(Bold emphasis added by me)
Link: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx
FTA: '"So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security," he said.'
Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!
Not that I don't think that this virtualization limitation is a bunch of bull, but the article does specifically say:
"Microsoft said developers who obtain Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium through their MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) subscription may use those programs within a virtual machine to assist them in designing, developing, testing and demonstrating their programs."
No, this is directed at people running Parallels on Mac OS X. It's unmistakeable. They want to kill Parallels. They also want to kill whatever virtualization solution is being built by Apple for a future Mac OS X.
Microsoft is feeling the heat from one of their oldest enemies. Leopard is a Vista-killer, and now that a large slice of the Macintosh population is MacIntel they are fearful that MacIntel will poach more customers from their base.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
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.
*********
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.
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 ][
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