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
'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'
Well, neither is Vista probably.....
"...enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista.."
It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.
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?
I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.
Hehe!
"So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
"Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
"Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
"Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
(Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)
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
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.
So this is how Microsoft achieves such a low TCO.
The article's point is that plenty of companies can do this, so long as they spend $60-$100 MORE for a business-class license. Apparently only those capable of spending more money have the cognitive capacities to understand risks involved in VM, and is a kick in the pants to home users who don't buy the same version as their office.
Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the black-on-colour iPod-esque commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!
-Matt
--- Need web hosting?
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...
My understanding is that there are only two versions of Windows vista which are allowed to run inside a virtual machine. A special addition for large corperations and the most expensive version available to home users.... Not that this restriction does not apply to using windows as the host OS....
I believe that the reason for doing this is quite simple... A lot of companies are moving towards virtualisation - Microsoft will make sure that the cheapest option is to use an MS Operating system as the host OS. I think that this tactic is an abuse of their monopoly powers. As the restriction really does not make sense in the amount of work that needs to go into their product.
Me when I upgrade to a capable processor might consider buying a cheap copy of windows to run windows software I occasionally come accross... But if they stick to this stupid rule they are not going to see a red cent from me..... I don't want or need the bells and whistles
Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.
"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."
Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
What are you talking about? They are not testing that the product works in a virtualized environment. They are testing that it works on Vista Home. The software is deployed from the development machine onto the virtual machine that is in a 'clean' state. Testing is done, and then the virtual machine can be reset back to a clean state a lot quicker than re-imaging the hard drive of a physical machine. The final verion(s) will be tested on a physical machine after they are happy with the results on the virtual machine.
This is obviously not how you develop fast action games, but it has been a real boon for testing other types of applications.
Not only virtualisation is restricted:
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
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
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?
You need a legal department to setup a VM?
Strange how I've never needed one of those for any other OS I have created a VM for in the past.
Which repository do I need to add to get a legal department?
liqbase
FTA: '"So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security," he said.'
Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!
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.
At first I thought "slashdotprod" was some kind of daemon that turns you into a /. professional moderator... then I got the joke. Brilliant idea BTW.
Global warming is a cube.
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.
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.
I think you meant to type Microsoft true motto:
"Where do you think you're going today?"
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
Microsoft is fragmenting their market even further?
What to do? What to do?
Ah, I'll just run Windows 2000 Professional on the few 'doze machines I keep going.
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?
will have MSDN subscriptions, and the OSes you get through MSDN do not have this license restriction. It's a non-issue for software development houses.
Happily you don't need a lawyer as the only limitation on what you can do with Vista is Copyright law.
EULAs are 100% worthless and unenforcable.
Well at least in Denmark and I suspect much of the EU.
You see we have a set of restrictions on confusing marketing, you can't sell something and then later try to impose extra limitations on the buyer.
If MS wants to make the EULA assholery binding then they will have to present the terms BEFORE the sale takes place otherwise we are free to ignore it completely.
The same is true for language, if the EULA is written in english then it's 100% non-binding.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
apt-get install leeches headache ulcers loss_of_income
The most dangerous strategy is to jump a chasm in two leaps. - Benjamin Disraeli
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."
'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
When I was at Bell Canada's offices, I saw exactly the same thing- mass-bought Dells with XP-Home stickers on the side. Guess what? They were all running network-imaged copies of XP Professional. They didn't even bother to remove the XP Home stickers.
Why bother? An XP Home licence is not worth the paper it's printed on for enterprise consumers.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
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