Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the little-bossy dept.

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."

8 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. B.S. by MobyDisk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  2. this makes my blood boil by cyber1kenobi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  3. Understanding by mSparks43 · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    1. Re:Understanding by GreatBunzinni · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
    2. Re:Understanding by Zaatxe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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!

      --
      So say we all
  4. Sounds like bullshit... by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
  5. Translation.... by d3ac0n · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
  6. Anti-Apple...again by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.