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