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."
::There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes.
And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA. I would have to check these conditions, but I would be surprised would that appear there, too.
Not just impossible, it should also not be allowed. Perhaps I'll be labelled as old-fashioned for saying this, but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it. It's supposed to be mine, isn't it? (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that; but I still strongly disagree with that.) If I want to virtualize my copy of Vista, I should be able to do so. If the program somehow fails due to Microsoft deliberately making it impossible, then that's sabotage to me. Yet another reason for me to not get it.
Yes..... and companies that write software for home users will need to run VMs that contain the home version of the operating system for testing purposes. Therefore the home user will also be able to do the same thing.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
-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...
On the other hand, if all my virtual machines have the same memory, network, disk size etc, then I'll only need to active Windows once, and I can run as many copies of it as I like: they will all see exactly identical machines, so the same activation code will work for all of them.
Could this be what Microsoft are really afraid of?
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!
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.
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
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!
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
VMWare Workstation uses a particular ethernet card address range. I believe (though I haven't tested it) that you can't the address to anything outside that range.
And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA.
That's nice for you. Many of us can't afford the £567.49 per annum than an MSDN Operating Systems subscription costs.
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.
'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
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