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."

3 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Control the Base, Control the Industry by Marcion · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
  2. Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista... by bealzabobs_youruncle · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I should preface this with the statement that I mostly use OS X and Linux for just about everything, but I usually take an extra box and slap the latest version of Windows on it just to maintain some knowledge for customers. But this might be the first version of Windows (yes, I endured ME) that won't get that treatment...

    -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...

  3. Re:this makes my blood boil by badfish99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?