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."

Comments

B.S.

[MobyDisk]

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.

Re:B.S.

[neoform]

*next week*

"Microsoft announces iTunes will be disabled on all copies of Vista, because it's a security risk that users doesn't understand."

(wow, as I wrote that, I got a creepy feeling.. that statement makes me think of all the trash that's come out of whitehouse press releases by Tony Snow)

Re:B.S.

[Andrew Kismet]

A reply to that would be "And if you don't have a computer, the only way you can use this product is by buying one. Should that be illegal too?"
More laws will not help. Microsoft can do whatever the hell they want with their own software and licensing.

Because choice is bad

[A beautiful mind]

So where do you want to go today?

this makes my blood boil

[cyber1kenobi]

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?

Understanding

[mSparks43]

Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines
I dont understand, what risks?

Re:Understanding

[GreatBunzinni]

I dont understand, what risks?

The same risks Microsoft tried to avoid by making it impossible to use WinXP home as a server: the risk of no one buying the "enterprisey" version of their OS and thus not shelving an extra 200$ per seat.

Re:Understanding

[Zaatxe]

I dont understand, what risks?

The risk of the user circumventing DRM. In a virtual machine, your "sound board" may be sending everything played right to a .wav file, clean of DRM. Same for movies. And Microsoft don't want to give its customers the way to break the law!

Sounds like bullshit...

[Lonewolf666]

Frokm the linked article:

A Microsoft spokesperson told ZDNet Asia: "For production machines and everyday usage, virtualization is a fairly new technology and one that we think is not yet mature enough for broad consumer adoption."

[...]

Michael Silver, Gartner's research vice president, wrote on the analyst company's blog that like Windows rootkits, there is a risk that VM rootkits can be installed unbeknownst to the consumer.

"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," Silver said.

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.

Translation....

[d3ac0n]

virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption

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.

looks familiar

[Andrei D]

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.

Anti-Apple...again

[mabhatter654]

this is specifically to get at Apple user's pockets!!!

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.