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
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?
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
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
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.
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
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.
For any company that _needs_ virtualisation for that purpose, the additional cost of an appropriate Vista licence is like pissing in the ocean.
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?
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.
I don't like MS, but if any software I wrote was being heavily pirated, I'd probably want to do something about it.. product activation wouldn't really cut it these days I guess, as you can presumably just distribute already activated VM images?
which is totally what she said
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.
Uh, this article is about virtualization being disallowed in Vista Home, maybe your comment should mention that concept more than tangentially instead of just complaining about some non-specific aspect of the Slashdot consensus?
One actual, real, bonafide concern that comes to mind is the possibility of an exploit in the guest OS allowing it to escalate privileges.
Of course, you only have to worry about this if the main OS is captured, which is a lot more likely with something that's tied down badly. People in this thread are treating VMware like a possible security solution...what if it isn't ready for that yet?
Of course, I can't help but think that "Virtual Machines aren't ready" is MS's way of saying, "Our virtual machine product isn't ready and if we let everybody use someone else's we won't get dominance of this emerging market."
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
Well, if you install a Microsoft product, you're pretty much guaranteed to get fucked one way or the other.
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 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."
Because you're more likely to have multiple VMs on the same machine once you can.
All of a sudden, a security hole in Vista and in VMWare is an exploit in a Linux VM.
All OSes running on the same box are equally secure if there's an exploit in the VM management software.
That's only one issue. The other is in the idea that a VM is a sandbox - which it should be. If it is, then you can go ahead and give an untrusted user such a box, and if they screw it up, then they're the only ones who suffer. Obviously this is not the case in this new instance. This is probably the only situation you're thinking about. All the other possibilities for exploits are based around the fact that the user/administrator of the machine is trusted - so that an exploit of the guest OS is required before an exploit of the host OS.
The third possibility, and the one that deals with the wierd situation you seem to be thinking of setting up in your first question (there's only one VM for your VM server), presents the risk of privilege escalation without going through a Windows vulnerability at all. If, for example, there's an exploitable bug in the design of one of the externally viewable virtual devices you might get something like that.
You see the problems now?
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!