Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax
An anonymous reader writes "Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh, alongside Mac OS X programs, will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems. The end-user license agreement for the cheaper versions of Vista (Home Basic and Home Premium) explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (i.e., Macs pretending to be PCs)." Update: 02/08 17:50 GMT by KD : A number of readers have pointed out that the Vista EULA does not forbid installing it via Apple's Bootcamp; that is, the "tax" only applies to running Vista under virtualization.
The summary is incorrect (quite understandable, as the article is misleading for the first half).
You're free to install Vista Home on a mac using bootcamp.
You're not free to install Vista home on any virtual machine including vmware under windows, bochs on linux or parallels for Mac.
In other words, the discrimination is against virtual machines, not Macs.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
So they can't use it in Parallels or whatever the vmware-equivalent is... neither can anyone else who wants to do it in vmware or VirtualBox
Bootcamp isn't emulated hardware last time I checked, it is just running Windows on the intel hardware
Should spend $500 on some PC hardware with Vista OEM installed and get over it.
Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?
Maybe this guy knows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEvYETWVK6M
Just get the MSDN OS Subscription and you can use the cheap version under virtual environment! Why? Because it is then governed by the MSDN License not the OS License.
This just in from the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" department...
What is the point from a business perspective? The result is to potentially kill off an entire (albeit smaller) market segment. Any self respecting Mac user will just chalk up another strike against MS. I see yet another nail in the coffin for MS. Until they try to embrace *nix and Mac users they are strangling their apps market by ensuring that non-Windows users will go anywhere except MS.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
They made a movie about this starring Hillary Swank.
1) The EULA terms apply to all VMs, not just Macs.
2) This anonymous comment found here says: Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
I just know I am going to get modded for this. Please be gentle. I believe Chairman Gates, when asked about why he wasn't allowing low end copies of Vista to be run virtually, his response was akin to, Consumers do not have the knowledge or technical expertise to run Vista in a virtual environment. Please! I think his statement was English for "You need to pay more money to us in order to do that."
Why can't the Mac users just boot directly into Vista?
Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.
the cheaper versions of Vista ... forbids ... use ... on virtual machines (ie Macs pretending to be PCs)
Running Windows on a Mac with Bootcamp (Apple's "dual boot partitioning software") is not a virtual machine. With Bootcamp you're running Windows right on the intel-based hardware just as if the machine was a plain-jane PC.
Parallels is virtual machine software that runs on Mac -- in which case Microsoft's beef should be with SWSoft/Parallels, not Apple.
boxlight
No, you gotta go buy an Apple PC to even think about running OS X.
So, you gotta buy a higher end version of Vista. At least you can run it on the Mac.
Now try buying OS X and installing it on the box you just built... can't do it.
I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.
because only macs run virtual machines. lets ignore Vmware altogether. Oh yeah and boot camp does not exist. This is such an idiotic article.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Alternatives to doing this include:
* mailing a part of your anatomy to a loved one (William Gates);
* using Wine to run a limited set of programs in an almost functional way;
* switching to a different program that does the same thing natively on the Mac;
* using a multi-boot scenario to boot into another OS instead of OS/X;
* using VMWare (does this run under OS/X YET???) to create a VM that runs an MS OS;
* creating a VM that runs Win2K or XP and ignoring the "benefits" of Vista;
* running naked through the frigid streets with a placard reading "UBUNTU ROCKS, BABY!"
* Diazepam, lots and lots of Diazepam (generic of Vallium, for the uninitiated).
Enjoy your happy and carefree lifestyle of free choices freely made in a consequences free environment !!
[ Oh. Sorry. I forgot. There are consequences. Never mind. ]
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
...or any other boot loader like rEFIt is *not* a virtual machine. This only applies to people using paralells and the like and applies equally to *anyone* who runs Vista in a VM (and this was expected a while ago too I seem to remember)... In other words, this is non-news people...
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
A Mac running Windows via Boot Camp is not running the OS in a virtual machine.
It's just using the same kind of BIOS-compatibility layer that any other PC with EFI uses to boot Windows.
But, in any case, the idea of paying $400 for Vista Ultimate + $80 for Parallels, just to run the occasional windows only binary on your mac, is incredibly noxious.
"The worst tyrannies were the ones where a governance required its own logic on every embedded node." - Vernor Vinge
I thought this battle over Mac PPC hardware being light years faster than Intel hardware was over when Mac started using Intel. Now they can run Vista in a virtual machine when most people would be happy to be able to run in on a real machine without it chugging.
We should now all go out and buy a Mac.
Seriously, they do mac some pretty cool hardware, buy one. you won't regret it.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
Most people install XP/Vista to run those one-off apps, or perhaps to run games.
The obvious Microsoft license-fighting option is just install the Crossover Professional from CodeWeavers. It's not free, but IE & Outlook can be up & running without much fuss without paying Microsoft a single penny.
Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. People are getting clued in to the fact that you don't need to suffer running a Windows PC in order to run Windows apps.
Every day I need to use multiple linux VMs and several Windows-only engineering apps, but I prefer to do as much as possible (especially email and desktop apps) in MacOS. With Parallels, the whole problem of needing multiple machines is completely solved, and the Coherence feature "just works". I can fit my whole life on one MacBook now instead of a clunky fugly Dell laptop, and I feel like my productivity has doubled.
I can totally see why Microsoft sees VMs as a threat. They give you the Windows apps you're forced to use due to Microsoft lock-in, but they let you get your work done on a good, modern, reliable OS. I can keep using the Windows XP license I already have, and because it runs in a VM I can upgrade my "hardware" without ever getting nagged about license keys. And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC. And I sure as heck don't have to upgrade to Vista any time soon.
I expect my hardware to work for me, not for you.
This is not just for macs, it is for all virtual machines. The reasons behind this is because normal users (i.e. Windows home users) won't use a virtual machine for emulation, besides mac users, who just happen to fall into a strange category. It was not designed specifically to be a Mac tax.
I seem to remember from ecomonics that while monopolies are legal, attempting to use it with anti-competitive practices such as price gouging the littling of remaining competition (e.g. Mac & Linux users interested in Vista to run a few apps that they can't natively.)
I question the legal merits of this.
Good job Redmond, kill your early adopters and sell your software only to the lockstep upgrade crowd.
I don't want my room filled with extra equipment. I don't want extra electricity used. I don't want to fill landfills with extra crap. And I don't want to have the inelegance of switching back and forth with a KVM switch.
Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they were able to run Windows apps on their Macs.
Just one more reason not to upgrade to Vista. That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with. Anyone want to guess what the main motivefor this is?
Yes, you are be legaly allowed to install Vista via bootcamp on a mac because all bootcamp does is set up a bootloader and HD partition and then burns a CDROM of drivers for you. No virtualisation envolved... unless 'They' claim that the bootloader is one ;)
This article should have been under a VMWare related thread. The pricing hits linux users most. (developers with win boxes propably are gona opt for the pro version anyway.)
Bootcamp is not virtualisation. You may still install windows on a separate partiaion of a Mac and boot from Vista individually. The special license only applies to virtualising Windows on a computer (any computer, wether it's another Windows machine, Linux or Apple). The title and topic of this article is misleading.
If one installs Vista (why? lol) in Boot Camp.. How is one stopped from using that as a launch image in Parallels ? I am happily running my (licensed) image of XP in Parallels, by using the Boot Camp image to launch.. I seem to recall having to enter my license number the first time i launched the VM image, but never after that (and it was because the "hardware" had changed (memory allocated was different)). After that initial request both boot camp and parallels launches proceed without interruption. I also read that Vista won't disable itself for a minor system change.. Has Redmond determined that each "hardware" change will make Vista "phone home" ? And thereby trigger the lawyers to send me a "nice" letter (or worse) were i to put a licenced copy of Vista on my Mac and try to launch the boot camp installed image from parallels ? Not that i would, just wondering :)
if you believe that shrink wrap licenses are valid.
All modern x86 processors emulate the x86 instruction set in microcode - i.e. they're prohibited "emulated hardware" systems.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.
1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?
Like you said, it's *only* been reported 17 times.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This has to do with running Vista on a VM - ANY VM! I doubt Microsoft did this just to screw Apple users. Sounds like the anonymous Apple fanboi that posted the article has his head too far up his ass.
We just started experimenting with parallels, and we got one disappointing surprise:
Parallels is designed for a single user. Each user of Mac OS needs to have their own installed copy of windows. There is no way with Parallels Desktop to have multiple mac users login to windows without installing a separate instance of windows.
Our goal was to eliminate bootcamp and allow roaming users to login to the Macs and then be able to fire up a copy of windows, and then login to that.
On the bright side: Parallels says they may rebuild the software to allow that type of use.
-ted
Bootcamp makes it so you can boot directly into Winders. Myth busted.
I hate sigs.
"Us"? You know, I have lots of computers. They run mostly Windows and BSD, with the occasional Linux box for measure. I don't identify myself with them. They're just boxes with an operating system. They just help me do my job(s). I'm not emotionally attached to them. I find it rather sad that someone would think that buying an appliance makes them part of some elite group of people.
And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
From what I've seen, this does not just apply to multiple installations. You really are not allowed to install a basic version on a VM, even if you buy a unique copy and only use it for that purpose.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
I don't know about Step 1, but the other 3 work great!
Big deal, the OSX license allows for installation on only Apple hardware, no VMs or anything. Atleast with Vista you have some options, even if you have to pay through the nose for it.
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
The point is to force business customers wanting to multiplex Vista on their big servers to buy more expensive versions of it. I think the Mac virtual machine business is just a side effect.
No, it's about fucking other platforms. With M$, it's their way or the highway. From the Fine Article:
There you go, kiddies, if your favorite website does some kind of WMV crap you won't be able to view it in a VM. Wanna bet M$ makes sure Mac is not invited to their new DRM party?
They won't be able to follow though with their bad intentions, though. Their new DRM is going to be about as popular as Zune.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
Well, here are the important parts from the license agreement: And here: Obviously this says nothing about Macs.
It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations.
The wording does seem to suggest this. By saying you cannot install it in VM running on the "licensed device " it sounds like it just means you cannot run the software inside a VM on the same machine that's already been licensed for it. If you buy Ultimate, they're basically giving you two licenses, one for the physical machine and one for use in the VM. The Home versions do not include this "bonus" license.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
... isn't there some editorial process here that is supposed to filter out obvious stupidity?
I run XP on Parallels on my iMac. I'm running the latest beta and I'm pretty sure that additions in the most recent version of Parallels allows it to boot the OS from the Bootcamp partition.
So would this prohibition mean that I could install Vista and run it in Bootcamp but if I booted that same software as installed within Parallels, I'd be struck by a bolt of lightning from Redmond?
Seems shortsighted to me.
See here, it works with other versions of Vista....
a c/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2007/02/firstlooks/vistam
Whether it all falls over if you install it in boot camp AND parallels because of MS's phone home registration, we are yet to find out.
Apple moves into VM?
Maybe, but in a very sluggish and almost useless way.
Call me when I can run OSX on a VM under OSX. Oh and in such a way as its supported both by Apple and the vendor of the VM system.
Tell me that I'm wrong and that Apple supports running OSX in a VM, go on I'd like that. A lot.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Who cares? Vista runs like a dog under Parallels anyway, even with all of the eye candy turned off. XP (or even better) Win2K run circles around vista under Parallels, and it runs most (if not all) windows applications.
I think Microsoft's position on this is entirely valid. If you are a developer testing your application on several operating systems, you should have an MSDN OS subscription - it gives you valid licenses for ALL of the current operating systems, complete with licensing rights to run them all under virtualization, for significantly less than retail. And if you're an average consumer using Parallels to run the odd Win32 application, XP does the trick nicely.
This can't be upheld in court, can it? If Microsoft put "you can not run this version of Windows and also run Linux in the same household" in their EULA, that would be nonsense. I really hope they can't get away with crap like this.
Yes, they have a lovely contract that says I cannot install this on a VM. Okay.. that's lovely - saddly since it's only revealed after purchase once the return policy is voided, is an obvious adhesion contract (a contract with fixed terms that you MUST agree with to use a service), and the contracts sole purpose it to leverage it's unreasonable position of advantadge to force the client into an untenable position.
Translation, I could break that baby in court after thirty seconds of argument before a judge.
-GiH
Just a law student.
What will they think of next?
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Hmm, so Bootcamp isn't hit with this? Not that I really have any plans to upgrade.
version.
With a profit margin in excess of 80%, the cost of any version of windows is mostly monopoly tax.
"And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point."
ok - then what is?
To be fair paying >$1000 for Mac hardware just to run the occasional Mac Universal binary is also incredibly noxious, especially since after the move to Intel there is essentially no difference between Mac hardware and your run of the mill PC.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
Basically they are saying if you want to run Vista on a Mac, you're gonna have to fork up cabbage for an Ultimate edition who's only purpose is to run on a Mac (whether you do it in a VM or via Bootcamp is your business).
Do you really think that the versions of OS X over the years have only ever added minimal features as typically included in a service pack? Dashboard, expose, and spotlight are all major features added just to the last release. Features that, coincidently, Microsoft has decided to emulate and also charge for in Vista.
The features added in each release are quite a bit more than a mere "service pack". Granted, each release may not have as many new features as Vista, but they also don't take 6 years to get out the door, either.
"Apple will let you run OS X on any computer it's licensed for, regardless of what other OS's may also be running on the computer. As long as you can run OS X on that computer, they don't give a shit what you do with it.
Microsoft, on the other hand, says you only have Vista rights if Vista is the primary OS at that time. Or you can pay them much more money to play fairly, despite the fact that you purchased a copy of Vista licensed to run on this particular computer. Microsoft is restricting your ability to use the software you purchased to run on that computer, and only let you do so if they're the software in charge. This is typical Microsoft behavior and has been since day one."
It's quite disingenuous to claim that Apple is being more reasonable with respect to virtualization.
Microsoft: We want more money to let you run Vista under virtualization.
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Microsoft's terms suck, there's no doubt about that. Apple's are worse.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
IANAL but from what I have read, all the license clause says is that if you want to run vista home in a virtual machine, you need one license for each copy of vista home you are running (whereas vista pro lets you use a copy in a VM even if its already being used on the real machine too).
Or am I reading it wrong and Vista Home prevents running it in a VM even when you aren't using that same licensed copy of Vista Home elsewhere (e.g, if its running inside a VMWare image hosted on a linux machine)?
Sorry, but 10.2 to 10.3, or 10.3 to 10.4 are NOT service packs. The service packs are the 3rd digit: 10.3.2, 10.4.8 and so on. When the middle digit changes, they charge - and they provide significant new features. When the last digit changes, they provide bug fixes. Very simple.
If you are going to rail on the Mac, fine, but please at least know what you are talking about.
I wish Transmeta was still in business so someone larger could sue. Even a standard pc has some emulation running if the pci bios handles things to spec. Couldn't any hardware including a firmware/bios be technically defined as emulating another interface? I could even define the lookback interface that comes with windows as virtual.
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
There is no good reason why anyone should buy Windows Vista, and plenty of good reasons why people should NOT buy Windows Vista - all of which have been discussed at length elsewhere.
If they want to run Vi$ta in a VM using MacOSX, then that is their choice. But more fool them!
There's a lot of FUD on all sides. First of all, the "obscene pricing" is mostly a myth. If you configure a BRAND NAME computer (not your back-room-where'd-they-come-from computers) to have the same features as a given Mac, the prices are not very different. Certainly not "obscene". You don't want all those features? That's another argument.
As a matter of fact, before the Mac Pro came out, a comparable Dell or HP cost about $3,800 for the Dell, and $4,300 for the HP. It took over a month for Dell to drop its price to match the Mac Pro's $2,500. THAT was obscene.
A Service Pack mostly fixes bugs, might add slight functionality. Each of the point upgrades on OSX was a quite different, much improved, FASTER version than the previous, with sometimes sweeping changes in major subsystems, and considerable added functionality. Hardly a "Service Pack". And Apple does streamline the code considerably, with noticeable differences in the feel of the OS from version to version.
"order of magnitude"...ok, where I come from, we use a base 10 numbering system, so a $50 Apple accessory would cost $5 from another vendor. Sorry, I guess I missed that rift. My bad.
iPods are tremendously more expensive than comparable competing products. Like the Zune? Is that a fair comparison? 30GB iPod $250. 30GB Zune $250. Seems close. Pretty close. Oh, wait! Features, yes, let us not forget that. iPod can accept ITMS music and videos, or your old CD collection after you rip it, or any MP3 you get from any source you wish. And you can play them all as many times as you want...until that sucker flat dies on you, even if that is ten years from now. The Zune? I don't know, but I've heard rumors. Only music purchased from MS, but NOT "PlaysForSure" (this piece is undisputed FACT). If you load something on it you've ripped yourself, or produced yourself, it lets you play it three times, or keeps it for three days, then it deletes it. Might be stolen...only stuff from MS can be genuine, I guess, so to be safe we'll just delete it.
BUT WAIT! - the Zune has Wi-Fi!!!! Yes, it does. But only to "squirt" (their term, definitely not mine!) stuff to another Zune...which in 3 plays/3 days gets deleted.
What am I missing?
Vista doesn't even have any worthwhile new features. Mostly useless aesthetic nonesense. I haven't had a mac since OS 9 so I really can't comment on what is in the updates. But if Apple is charging for something that delivers LESS than Vista that is fairly sad.
The fact that it applies to all virtual machines doesn't mean that mac isn't the one that microsoft is threatened by and motivated by. Nor does the fact that it is still allowed to be run via Boot Camp prove that it the policy is not a defense against macs.
If they had just said "home edition can't be run on computers manufactured by Apple Inc.", that would have been seen as clearly anti-competitive, possibly by the courts, but certainly by consumers. This way is more subtle.
Basically they are saying if you want to run Vista on a Mac, you're gonna have to fork up cabbage for an Ultimate edition who's only purpose is to run on a Mac (whether you do it in a VM or via Bootcamp is your business).
Huh? Only if you want to run it in BOTH bootcamp (which is NOT a VM) and in something like Parallels. You are perfectly free to run any version in either of those systems but only the Ultimate can be run in both.
Thank you for helping me make my point. A major upgrade isn't a "service pack", it's like going from win95 to win98, or NT to 2000, etc. And, guess what, nobody is _made_ to upgrade anything. The upgrades offer new features and (shock!) better performance on existing hardware. You can choose, you see, if you want to upgrade or not.
Do Apple accessories not cost exponentially more than identical products, even those made by other brand name companies?
No, they're not. Thanks for playing. HINT: hardware doesn't care if it's plugged into a Mac or a PC. Just bought a printer today in fact; oddly enough, the Epson Whateverthefark PhothWhatsit doesn't know or care what it's plugged into, a minute or 2 of work and it's running. WHAT extra expense?
Are iPods not far more expensive than competing players with greater functionality? Since when?
I guess it depends on what's important to you. Me, I prefer knowing that I don't have to dick around with my system when I get home, because I've got 800 boxes or so to dick around with during the day; I want it to _just work_. It does.
Those of us who don't worship at the Church of Apple are not ignorant of the Book of Jobs, we just choose not to buy into it... figuratively or otherwise. It's not that we don't "get" Macs, it's that we don't care, and you're too much of an elitist prick to "get" why.
That's great. Kindly tell me specifically then, what your direct personal recent experience is with Mac, Unix, and iPods. Because it seems that, as usual of people badmouthing Apple for reasons that, knowing Apple stuff I see as iffy at best, you're speaking out of preconceived notions and ignorance rather than knowing about that of which you speak. [not posting AC because it's lame, and I'm willing to take a Karma hit from the fanboys]
And that's why I'm responding.
I'm sure you have a good reason for wanting to do that, but none immediately comes to mind to me. I doubt it is something that more that a tiny fraction of mac users (or potential mac users) would have a need for.
Being able to run windows apps on a mac is much more important in terms of its impact on the industry. By allowing people to gradually transition away from windows, it addresses the number one reason that no competitor has been able to make a significant dent in microsoft's monopoly.
What else is new thought? Slashdot is just a Fark for linux geeks.
I think Fark has fewer dupes (at least percentagewise) and outright wrong stories.
I'd love to see if this little clause can stand up in court. From a support standpoint, it makes sense why MS would say this...would you want to be an MS support monkey trying to tell clueless, but dangerous, Uncle Bob that his version of 64bit Vista isn't working due to some unforeseen issue that can be blamed on VM software? The only thing I could come up with off the top of my head is driver support (obviously), which would be a problem regardless of virtualization.
Furthermore, offering what basically amounts to the same product (but with even more frilly features!), without the VM clause makes it seem like a pretty weak argument, as there are plenty of "home" and "premium" uses for running Vista in a VM.
Ohwell. It just sounds like one of those EULA lines that was thrown in just for fluff, and just so tech support can say, "get off my line, you retarded monkey."
I wonder how many of the slashdot readers read the comments on articles to find out which ones are just plain wrong? Slashdot's approval of blatant lies and reverse-FUD is embarrassing and immature.
MAC Address? If you want to say Apple computer's Mac. Case!!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
This is licensed software. It is licensed to be run on a single device. The relevant part of the license is:
"License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis...
INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must
assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device."
A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may
use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the
Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any
other device."
If you put the two together, the result is strange. Apparently, you can designate the computer running a virtual machine as a "licensed device". You can even INSTALL Vista Home on it. You just can't USE it. Nor can you use it on emulated hardware such as BOCHS, either.
Specifically, there is a license prohibition against that use. To do this, you need Ultimate. But even with Ultimate on a VM or emulated system, you are not licensed to use Microsoft DRM.
I don't like it. But that's the way it's written.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I'm not the parent poster, nor do I own any mac (last one I used involved claris works and the third grade), but I assume he'd want to do it for the same reason people run windows in a VM on windows -- Security and reliability of a sandbox.
Testing new software that might hose everything? One disk image revert and you're back to how things were.
Running insecure software? Same thing.
Developing software that needs to run on multiple environments? Keep multiple versions of OS X (as in patch levels, installed programs/libs, etc) and test them all from one machine.
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
What is a "licensed device"? Is Microsoft saying that they are once again, locking their OS to the hardware?
Now, what would the "licensed device" be with a standalone copy of Vista Home Basic if the original intent is to run it in a VM? There is no licensed device unless the VM image is the licensed device?
The way I read what the EULA is attempting to say, they don't allow you to run the version of Microsoft Windows Vista, which you purchased with the computer, inside a virtual machine on that computer or any other computer. ie you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The license detail in question, refers to virtual environments, to which Boot Camp is not, Boot Camp is a boot/startup loader/selector.
;)
Of course, not that anyone would really want to waste money on the home version anyway.
Lets link to a blog and start slinging FUD. Then we can watch the Slashdrones pat each other on the back for hating MS. Don't forget to mark the lame posts as funny!
You don't even deserve this, but I'll bite and feed the real "prick" of a troll.
1.Macs are similar in price- no more than about 10-15% (more or less).
2. iPods are often cheaper than the competition or the same (Zune) plus while they lack some "features" they make up for this by not being a bitch to use and actually working on a Mac instead of being PC only.
3. Mac OS upgrades have plenty of new features most of which you can test out with a few hardware upgrades and a bunch of patentice in the *NEW* Vista. But don't worry they are just a teaser.
4.Not sure what you mean by "Apple accessories" if you mean the mouse and keyboard maybe, but 3rd party stuff is the same price.
Wow I hope that you stop being such a FUDmaster and grow up. If you wanna talk try reading a book first.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I'm clearly not a typical case, but I can tell you why _I_ want to do just that.
I do a lot of research and experimentation with hardware and software to understand security implications. I am also a Mac fan (though I do work on a number of platforms), and I have a personal interest in Mac security. Being able to load OS X into a VM would give me a lot of flexibility. I'd be able to quickly reset OS X to known, clean states, and simulate particular network environments.
So you want to run Bitlocker or use some other crap in Vista Enterprise? Vista's software assurance license requires you to pay a per-seat charge for all workstations, including Mac & Linux.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I don't see why you couldn't have two users pointed at the same virtual hard drive - BUT I think before you switched to the other user, you would have to pause the VM and possible quit from Parallels for the inactive user, to avoid locking the virtual HD.
If you think about it you can't really leave one windows running, in the same way you cannot have two users logged into Windows at once either. It would trash the hard disk.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.
When I do get a macbook, I will want to run windows via Bootcamp. I'll only use it to play games though. However, I would probably never end up using parallels, so would I have to purchase the super expensive version of Vista to install on my X86 PC BASED HARDWARE? I will NOT be emulating it at all, so do I still fall in the "you're gonna run it on a mac, you gotta buy the ball busting version" category? Purely for curiosity purposes, I won't be touching vista for many, many years.
Macs pretending to be PCs
Funny, and I thought nowadays Apple sells PC's pretending to be Macs.
That's why I said "for me". In other words, yes, he probably has a good reason, I don't question that. But the ability to run windows on a mac has much more mainstream reasons, and therefore much further reaching implications.
The wording is somewhat odd, but it's probably partially because the idea of VMs is pretty new and they are just trying to adjust traditional licensing terms to the idea.
What is a "licensed device"?
I think the licensed device is the system that Windows is running on. If you buy one copy of Home and install it on your computer, that system is the licensed device. If you buy a computer from Dell, that computer is the licensed device. A VM running on these systems would be considered a separate entity and need it's own software license.
Now, what would the "licensed device" be with a standalone copy of Vista Home Basic if the original intent is to run it in a VM?
The way I read it, the licensed device in this case would be the VM. I see no reason why you couldn't run Home under a Windows/Mac/Linux VM if that is the only place you install it.
you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places
I think that's exactly it. Home versions of Vista come with ONE "full" license (to be used on any hardware) and ZERO "virtual" licenses. Enterprise and Ultimate versions come with ONE full license and ONE virtual license (to be used on the same machine as the full license was). Following this logic, it would be just fine if you bought Ultimate, installed it first in a VM (using the full license), then installed it in another VM (using the virtual license) running inside the original VM.
Really, it's not that bad. If this is indeed what they were trying to say, the license is pretty nice for the Ultimate and Enterprise editions. The whole point seems to be to prevent someone from trying to bypass the licensing agreement by installing Vista in dozens of VMs using only a single license.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Yes, this article is crap, but for what it's worth, the Vista Home Basic and Home Premium license is intended to prohibit use in any kind of virtual machine environment. I had the same line of reasoning you did. Vista Ultimate does come with two licenses, but Home Basic and Home Premium really do intend (apparently) to prohibit use in virtualization. This has been covered repeatedly, and confirmed by Microsoft representatives.
-----
On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:
Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in a virtual machine.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com
Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Paul,
In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all
this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:
Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
"4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or
otherwise emulated) hardware system."
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside
a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization
product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed
anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and
Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the
same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment
on the same device where Vista is already installed.
The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of
virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can
still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such
as Parallels or VMWare.
[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is
already installed on a licensed device.
[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already
installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it
in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business
and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses
specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these
specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in
the EULA in the first place.
Thoughts?
Poor Microsoft. They cant do anything right. This may get them in court. They f*cked up the Zune. they f*cked up 'Plays fer sure', and now they have spent 5 years f*cking up Windows by producing the village idiot Vista. Gates was last heard ranting that 'OSX was being hacked on a daily basis' - but he has stopped now that his medication has been adjusted. I wouldnt mind Windows so much if Microsoft werent such a bunch of crooks....
Apple users are compfrotable paying way more than they should for software, hardware, etc. Mac users won't be flustered a bit! :-)
Thanks,
Mike
BTW all the reviews i see on the Zune mention nothing about the 3 day/3 play rule on your OWN library.
...Costs more to support. Think of the complaining users endlessly frustrated with dog-slow performance attempting to run a real-time OS on a virtual machine. It's just business....
Taking you at your word for a sec, if you support that many machines you're prolly using a standardized set of components (or a commercial machine, prolly a business class machine which means if nothing else - better driver support) that you *know* works fully and you're using a pushed image of windows to keep them running (either that or you're a)incompetent or b)running a support nightmare, in which case you have my sympathy). Thing is, on that scale, standardized, it's easy to keep things stable. However, the average user has driver issues all the time with windows. While nearly everything is supported on windows more or less, stability is another story (even on commercial consumer boxes - the original wireless driver that shipped with my girlfriends dell laptop was massively unstable when using wpa encryption for example). On the other hand, as long as you stick with Apple hardware, in the apple ecosystem you are fully supported running osx, hence easier stability but less options.
:-P). Now, I use windows all the time (including on my macbook pro for some development and gaming), and on *any* of my generic PC desktops, be they Lin or Win, I've always been very careful about what hardware I buy. I haven't had a really unstable windows machine personally in quite a while (XP and 2k, with good drivers, are excellent, stable OSs, much as I prefer debian and osx), but I've seen a lot of 'em, and a fair chunk were driver issues...
As for why Apple revoked their licensing for their OS, it was a combination of them really being a hardware company (they were losing money) and the dilution of stability (I remember running some of those clones, some were perfect, some were *massively* unstable - kinda like windows machines
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and as such they are NOT allowed to the same 'competitive' practices as others. The "convicted" part is stated because they've already shown to have used their monopoly position illegally under the rules of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Apple is not even close to being a monopoly so they can do as they please under normal competitive rules.
Why is this soooo difficult for people to understand....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Yes. The product activation would see Boot Camp and Parallels as two separate motherboards.
This may be a dumb question, but when an EULA says that you may not do so-and-so... what goes in the "or else" part after that? "Or else we won't offer you tech support?" If that's all, who cares (besides businesses, etc etc; people hacking around with their own computers running things in VMs can do their own tech support). Or is it more like "or else we'll sick the FBI on you?" If that's the case, what exactly is the crime being committed?
If I've purchased a copy of some software from an authorized distributor, it is a legal copy full stop, so I've not violated any copyright law (if downloading pirated music isn't a violation of copyright law - which it isn't, only uploading is - then running a legally purchased copy of software from an authorized distributed certainly isn't). And patents and trademarks are nowhere near applicable in this case (unless I'm reverse-engineering their software to make use of their patented techniques, or making use of their brands in advertising somewhere or some such), so it seems I'm not violating intellectual property right laws at all.
If I'm running it on my own computer, I'm not doing anything to anyone else's physical property, so it doesn't seem like any sort of physical property laws apply either; I can do whatever the hell I want to my own property. And unless I'm using it to control an evil robot of doom and terrorize downtown Los Angeles, I'm not committing a crime directly against another person (e.g. murder, assault) either.
Is it contract law? So just because the software says "by installing this software, you agree not to use this software in these ways", I'm suddenly bound in what I'm allowed to do with my own property? Would that hold up in court for any other kind of product? If I buy a new bicycle chain, can they put a licence agreement inside the box it came in that says by installing this bike chain, I'm agreeing not to use it to ride anywhere outside of the lower 48 states? Or rather, would any such licence be at all valid? What if they put it outside the box?
It may sound immature, but I feel like saying to these EULA lawyers, "Oh yeah? Or else what?"
Does anybody know what their response would be?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
So, just to clarify, if I want to run it on my Mac, I will have to pay for it? Now there's a wild concept.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
But if I buy a Mac now, can I still buy a copy of Windows XP to run under Parallels? Or has Windows XP been withdrawn from the market for the next 90 years?
How long will Windows XP Home Edition continue to be sold before Microsoft withdraws it from the market for 90 years?
Regardless of what on e could call a device, the EULA explicitly states that a hardware partition or blade acts as its own device. Thus, hardware virtualization products (like Parallels) should be in the clear. Assuming that your lawyers can argue that it creates hardware partitions.
From what I've seen, this does not just apply to multiple installations. You really are not allowed to install a basic version on a VM, even if you buy a unique copy and only use it for that purpose.
Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property. You can't make copies for other people due to copyright law, but if you want to install it in a virtual machine running on your toaster then knock yourself out.
There is not one god damned thing in the world that allows them to dictate how you choose to use your property.
Pretending that they have rights that they do not and treating this nonsense in their meaningless EULA as if it were even sane is just fucking retarded.
Run it anywhere you damn well please. It is your right if you paid for it.
I'll just go pick up a retail copy of Max OS X at Best Buy and install it on my Dell, I'm sure there's nothing against that in the license.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
And a Service Pack does not come with many added features ? I mean compare Windows XP SP1 and SP2 and you will see a major difference.
>>I think the funniest part of your post is the fact that Americans have been conditioned to believe a Cadillac Escalade is a "luxury vehicle". It might be an upscale SUV, but luxury? Oh, dear.
Considering it has the interior room of the average English home, could crush most French cars without scratching the bumper AND is powerful enough to pull a twin-hull racing boat, yeah, I'd say it's a luxury vehicle. Your jealousy is transparent.
Since you and others have been so asinine about it: I helped run what was essentially a small computer lab (a physics lab, technically, but since the physics functionality was mostly provided by a combination of software and semi-DIY equipment, this is a mere technicality... especially since that hardware and software worked just fine) comprised entirely of Macs (well, okay, there was one Dell... but most of the time it was unplugged, because the professor in charge was a Mac fanboy, so it hardly counts) as a course of doing my job, I learned how to perform basic end-user maintenance stuff, and since part of my job was actually just being there (so the lab could remain open) I spent a decent amount of time using them to do things like browse the web, write papers, etc. simply because they were the only option. Expert, no, but I'm not unfamiliar with OSX. iPods may not cost more than the Zune, but there are legions of other digital music players out there, many of which require no more fiddling with a computer than a USB thumb drive and cost far less. In terms of improved functionality: I like Ogg Vorbis, and last I checked, Apple had no plans to ever make iPods play nice with Ogg. I just wonder why the universal response to my criticizing the iPod's price tag was to bring up the Zune... a product I wasn't even thinking about (I try not to, actually...) I have priced equivalent PCs and Macs on many occasions. The Macs were universally more expensive. By a sizable amount. 10%-15% on a purchase over $1000 is a sizable amount. Yes, they did come with more 'features", but as one commenter noted, they were generally features I didn't want, or which I could get for a much lower price tag. Apple accessories absolutely cost far more... I'm not talking 3rd party hardware here (it would be silly if I were, don't know where that idea came from), I'm talking $40 carrying cases for iPods (I've seen generic ones of perfectly acceptable quality for $5-$10), I'm talking about $120 iSights that provide no greater (or lesser) functionality than a $20 webcam and a $10 boom mic for the vast majority of users (the few for whom it does make a difference are probably better served by a real, professional grade video camera and/or microphone anyway), mice that cost $50 and don't even have a second button, never mind a scroll wheel with a built in third. You're welcome to go check Newegg if you don't believe me, but i swear, most of this stuff can be had for far less, and often you get a lot more for it. I don't have a huge amount of *nix experience. I know that's like saying I don't like pizza round these parts, but i don't. I also don't know what that has to do with anything, aside, perhaps, from the fact that OSX is built on a Unix back end, but they also went to great pains to ensure most users would never need to know that, or even care. Since when does not being a Linux guru make me any less qualified to determine that Macs aren't worth my money? I used OSX when it first came out. I used it after the Panther upgrade. I used it after the next upgrade. Maybe everyone else saw the justification for the $100 upgrades, but I hardly noticed. There were a couple new widgets, things were slightly more stable, it was certainly an improvement... but it was hardly earth-shattering. If anyone else tried to charge a hundred bucks for that they'd get laughed at. On a side note, I don't have Vista installed. I don't WANT Vista installed. I cringe at the mere thought of letting that piece of cludge anywhere near my Precious. Honestly, I hadn't even upgraded to XP from 2000 until this past fall... on second thought, scratch the part above where I said anyone else would get laughed at, I have yet to find any but the most superficial differences in terms of using the two. Apparently I'm just not perceptive enough to catch the amazingness of what qualifies as a "major upgrade" nowadays, but I don't think a downgraded UI (thankfully revertable) and a new WiFi control interface (much improved, but still) should be the most noticeable changes to a pay up
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Ooh, and doubly because I forgot to POT it. Whatever.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
You need to buy the expensive version if (you want to be legal and) you want to run inside a VM. You can dual-boot any version of any OS you'd like.
That's right, if it's an EULA that you are presented with after paying for the product then it is not an agreement. Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid, and in the case of an EULA you get nothing. Microsoft could give these terms before you buy, in which case they would be part of an agreement.
That would seem like the logical thing but in today's world you didn't buy it and it's not your property. You have simply paid MS for the rights to use their intellectual property under the terms they dictate.
People here complain about the GPL but at least the GPL does not apply to you if you are merely USING the software.
evil is as evil does
also remember that the new mac's have BootCamp which doesn't Virtualize the OS.. so it will be fine.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I'm sure you have a good reason for wanting to do that, but none immediately comes to mind to me.
One example; we have a need to test various web browsers in various versions of OSX as well as other OS's.
At the moment we need at least 2 macs and 1 PC with VMWare to do this. I'd like to cut that down to one mac.
Good enough reason you think? And its not just us; any outfit that needs to do decent testing of various configurations benefits from being able to virtualise various OS's.
So far OSX stands out like a sore thumb for its inability to run virtualised. (Ok so it can be *forced* to run in VMWare but I'm not going to rely on that in an enterprise setting).
Its the *only* desktop OS that explicitly and specifically disallows virtualisation.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
As much as I would like to agree with you, you are wrong. At least in the US.
You do not buy Vista. You buy a license to use Vista. The EULA is a list of terms under which that license is valid. The concept of the EULA has been tested and upheld now in numerous lawsuits in numerous states.
That would seem like the logical thing but in today's world you didn't buy it and it's not your property. You have simply paid MS for the rights to use their intellectual property under the terms they dictate.
I have yet to hear of a single court case lending any validity to that viewpoint.
Were I to buy one of their products, I'd head down to the computer store, pay Microcenter for a product in a box and I would own it. Whatever nonsense they want to write inside the box is meaningless.
There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction.
I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.
See above. But if you need it spelled out for you: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and monopolies play by different rules. Furthermore, Microsoft got in trouble for telling other people (Dell, HP, Gateway) what to do with their own products. Apple isn't doing anything like that (both Macs and OS X are Apple products) so your comparison is stupid.
And a Service Pack does not come with many added features ? I mean compare Windows XP SP1 and SP2 and you will see a major difference.
Nope. Bug fixes and a firewall do not count.
You wanna run Vista on your Mac? Now there's a wild concept.
I say that mainly because for myself I have Zero interest in installing Vista on my mac in either Bootcamp or in a VM I understand the yes some people need both and being able to have both on one computer can be a real space saver on top of a desk. But I don't think that we are going to hear a lot of people complaining about it. I figure that someone out there will find a work around after all we are talking about Microsoft here people.
No, copying it from disc to memory when you boot it is a copy that you need a license for, as is copying it to the disc during installation acording to court precedent. This is what makes the EULA necesary. They are giving you these copyrights in exchange for how you may use them.
I knew it was a rotten apple long ago. I'm currently an XP user, but am using the time I have before MS discontinues support for it to learn Linux in at least some form, namely Ubuntu (which as far as hand holding Linux distros go, is the best I can use. I figured out how to get my TV tuner card running in it after just 10 minutes, and how to run video downloads in another 30).
Mind you, I would prefer to use an OS straight out of the box, without having to learn how it works from the ground up. Ubuntu does this for the most part. I'll most likely still use XP just because there are more drivers that support it (printing, digital cameras, et al), but with hardware firewalls in my router and despite the probable cut off date for support, my risks are further minimalized.
Wish I didn't have to do it, however. I just want my box to do what I want, I don't want to be involved in a religious war or inquisition in order to do it.
Wish the Linux guys would have figured that out 5 years ago when it would have made a difference.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
http://linuxjournal.com/article/5628 - The Good
http://www.eff.org/wp/eula.php - The Bad
goatse - The Ugly
I figure that means somewhere down the road there will be a court case that decides just how much a software vendor can control-via-license just what customers do with the software they paid for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...can't you guys see that?
So 20 years from now when I'm emulating Vista (cause I'm like that) I'll have to make sure to pirate the correct version... ;)
Shh.
[informative email]
:(
Well, frak.
I guess while reading the EULA I was expecting some level of common sense, but assuming Paul is accurate, in this case Microsoft appears to have thrown it out the window.
What possible *reason* is there to prevent people from running Home in a VM? It's not like they're losing money when people do it. The only thing I can think of is greed: they think running the OS in a VM is a "feature" you should pay extra for. What's next? Hosting a VM on Windows is a "feature"?
Stupid
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
This doesn't affect Windows other OS running VMWare or Linux running VMWare how?
Slashdot - home of FUD and absolutely no editorial restrictions if it makes MS (or other hated entities) look good.
(a mac user)
To be fair, they updated the wireless networking window as well. Then again, wireless was a total PITA in vanilla and SP1, so I'll file that under your firewall category.
Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property. You can't make copies for other people due to copyright law, but if you want to install it in a virtual machine running on your toaster then knock yourself out.
You do not "own" anything classed as "intellectual property". You are allowed to use it under the conditions granted to you by a) copyright law and b) the copyright holder.
Microsoft just go from strength to strength.
I would never have thought it was possible for a company (other then perhaps IBM) to so readily get in a coffin and nail down the lid from the inside. I recommend ubuntu.
Please state exactly which part of the anti-trust case judgment forbids Microsoft from locking their OS to specified hardware.
I wonder if you'll be singing the same tune when Apple's unquestionably superior OSX rules the world in however many years' time and they start screwing their customers for a bit more license revenue.
PS, signing your posts is retarded. If I was remotely interested in whatever username you pulled out of your arse I'd look in your posts' header.
LoB.
Basically they are saying if you want to run Vista on a Mac, you're gonna have to fork up cabbage for an Ultimate edition who's only purpose is to run on a Mac (whether you do it in a VM or via Bootcamp is your business).
Uh, no they're not (as you just argued the paragraph before ?).
This does seem like a red herring though.
For the sake of argument, I'm going to grant that installing software means making a copy and as such is covered by copyright law. I can even, for the sake of argument, grant that loading the software into memory means making a copy.
However, that act of making a copy isn't neccessarilly illegal unless permitted by EULA. There is such a thing as "fair use" among other things, which allows you, among other things, to make a copy of your favorite music CD for your own personal use, for example.
I fail to see how installing software would be any different, as I understand it.
My conclusion: EULA's are bogus, and as long as the original is legally obtained, making copies within your own household for personal use cannot be regulated by copyright law. This should mean that you can buy one single copy of Vista Home Edition and put it on every single of your 473 computers in your basement, including the virtual machines.
I'm not sure how this would apply to businesses though. I don't imagine copying every single machine from a single copy of Windows Vista Home Edition would count as fair use.
Indeed OSX is only licensed to run on Apple hardware but unlike Windows that hardware comes with a license to run the released version of MacOS at the time on it forever. When I buy a new Mac, I get a new license so its pointless to consider transferring my license. But lets consider Windows. Say I buy a computer without an operating system and put Windows Vista on it. That copy of Vista, which was seperate to the hardware, is now locked to the hardware that it is installed on. If I buy a new computer, again without and operating system, I cannot transfer my license from the original PC to the new one, I have to buy a new copy of the operating system. I can wipe the hard drive of the original computer clean so that no traces of Microsoft OS' are there but I can't install it on a new PC. The key difference here is that every Mac comes with a copy of MacOS installed/licensed to it. The MacOS license restricts you to using their operating system with their hardware. Without hacking the software/tampering with it, I do believe it is impossible to get it to run on non-Mac hardware. Apple are a hardware company, in all reality they give their software away. Compare Mac OS X to Vista Ultimate in terms of price. Windows came in and undercut the market place selling cheaper than all those out there, now that the competition has started to die off and they've got a strong monopoly they're raising the prices back to where they used to be.
I always wondered where this setting was...
The relevant quote is this. (emphasis mine)
Firstly, this clause doesn't say you can't run Vista Home Basic in a VM. It says that for a given, already installed copy, you can't also run it inside a VM. The Ultimate one says the opposite, which implies that if you have a single valid installation of Vista Ultimate, you can also run it inside VMs without purchasing additional licenses.
Secondly, even if it were true that the cheaper versions weren't licensed for VM use, this has no relevance to Macs in particular. Flamebait up the wazoo.
Again, this is just my take on it.
"I have yet to hear of a single court case lending any validity to that viewpoint."
It hasn't been tested in courts but I think it's reasonable to expect that the EULAS carefully prepared by an army of lawyers would stand up in court without problems.
"Were I to buy one of their products, I'd head down to the computer store, pay Microcenter for a product in a box and I would own it."
You own the box, you own the CD that came in the box, you own the papers in the box. You don't own the program, you are merely licensing it's use from MS under the terms they dictate.
"There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction."
You are simply wrong.
evil is as evil does
If you buy vista then you own that copy, just like you own a CD.
There are no restrictions on what you can do with that copy other than copyright law.
That means that you can legally run any version of vista on any machine you want to, virtual or not.
The only terms of the purchase that matter are those that are presented to you before you hand over the cash at the store, so the EULA is not worth the space it wastes on the CD.
What would happen if EULAs were allowed?
You might find that after you get home with your new car that you are obligated to only buy Shell(tm) gasoline.
Well, in the EU at least.
If EULAs were to have any power at all then you would need to read, understand and agree to the terms before making the purchase, MS knows full well that they would never sell another copy if people read any of their EULAs so that will never happen.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
Yeah thats with XP. This is NEW Windows Vista with 20% more EULA.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this also forbid you from using Vista's DLLs with Wine (if that is even technically possible), if your version of Vista is Home Basic/Premium ?
In Germany, a Microsoft EULA clause that forbids unbundling of OEM versions has failed in court a few years ago. It was the Bundesgerichtshof to boot, Germany's highest court in non-constitutional affairs.
Large companies use EULAs as FUD tactics far more often than you think. If the EULA can scare most people into obeying (not counting those who outright pirate the software anyway), it has served its purpose even if it doesn't hold water in court.
C - the footgun of programming languages
no text...no text...
C - the footgun of programming languages
Except that your property is, probably, the box and the DVD inside it.
The program is not yours - it's Microsoft's property. What you are paying for, besides the plastic and paper, is for the right to use the program in accordance with their terms.
"You are coming to a sad realization, cancel or allow?"
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
From a user perspective, I think API clones like WINE are more interesting. Even if my next computer will be capable of handling Vista in a VM, why would I want to run this memory hog? Besides, I'd still have to pay for a Vista license :-(
I'd rather have a relatively light compatibility layer that gets the job done while consuming less system ressources (and yes, I know WINE is not 100% mature yet).
C - the footgun of programming languages
Not to trash Microsoft too much, but... Remind me why I care what they say. If you can't enforce it, you might as well blow it out your ass. I'll get right on giving a damn what they say I "Can" and "Cannot" do with their software, right after I send the RIAA a check, and pay for my software, and my porn for that matter. I think we all know I have no intention of doing any of the above. Or downloading vista for that matter.
In the end, the only thing that matters is how much fun you had.
In Germany, a similar "contract of adhesion" was found unenforcable in court a few years ago. The lawsuit was Microsoft vs. a computer dealer who unbundled hardware and OEM versions of Microsoft software. M$ lost that one.
Note that the end user in Germany is given additional protection against "unfair and surprising" clauses in "Terms Of Service", EULAs and the like. So even if Hans Kraut carelessly accepts a particularly onerous EULA under circumstances that would make it binding, he has a chance of taking it down in court.
Merchants have to be more careful, as they are held to a higher standard of diligence.
C - the footgun of programming languages
yeah, it's on the site, download it... and install it on an OSX host.
And I can't think of any downside to installing XP, except that I think that OEM copies on the free market are going to get VERY expensive REAL soon now. I see demand from both Mac users AND dissatisfied people who got a machine with Vista on it snd want something that works.
Other than that, I suggest combining the "run naked through the streets" and diazepam option.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Consider the "Not Responsible For Lost or Stolen Items" signs at your mall's parking lot. Do you think that's the case? Do you truly believe that it's thus impossible to sue and win for a situation where they *are* responsible? They put those signs up because if it keeps even *one* person from suing for what is rightfully theirs, the signs have more than paid for themselves.
Same with EULAs.
EULAs may be iron-clad, or they may be absolutely meaningless (although I bet, as is usually the case, reality lies somewhere in between). Either way, the lawyers are going to write them to ask for the most they can make sound even remotely reasonable, while denying every possible manner of liability or responsibility fathomable. The purpose is similar to the sign in the parking lot. You're not going to get something you don't ask for, so why not ask for the Moon? The worst you'll get is nothing, and who knows, you might just get what you ask for. Even a compromise turns out to be a win.
And what if EULAs turn out to have been a sham this whole time? Guess what: they've worked spectacularly. Countless people and corporations have been obeying them faithfully, even if it turns out they never had to.
How much did it cost for the lawyers, who were already writing an EULA anyway, to add a line prohibiting use in a VM? How many people will now buy a more expensive version of Vista to comply (especially in corporate environments)?
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid
Taken from: wikipedia.
It depends on the legal jurisdiction, as some courts have said yes a EULA is enforceable and some have said no they are not.
Also, it depends on the terms in the EULA. Just like any other contract, there are limits to what is contractually allowed. You cannot have any terms you want, there are both conditions and limits. What those limits are depends on the jurisdiction that will apply.
Perhaps one other thing worth noting is that it is usually the case that dispensing legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal. I'm covered.
I think that it is about time that governments passed laws stipulated that licences only be allowed to add to your legal rights and not be allowed to restrict actions which would be allowed in the absence of the licence.
I would liek to add my voice to those who have pointed out that PC users (windows) are unable to install MAC OSX in dual boot/VM or whatever. I would love to be able to install OSX and have Final Cut Pro and Apature installed, but am never likely to be able to on anything other then Apple hardware. Mac users can whine all they like about having to pay extra for Ultimate to be able to use Vista in a VM or whatever - 'cos Apples the 'underdog' isnt it. Microsoft is big bad corporation... Steve Jobs is like a kindly uncle - whatever. I don't apreciate having to fork out £1600 (no monitor included) for a machine that is able to run Final Cut Pro the way I want, when my £1300 PC (including 2 19 inch LCDs) would be able to do the same if I was able to install it. Cry me a river Mac users.
In addition to the rule only applying to (any) virtual machine as previously mentioned, bear in mind that Mac users are at best a step below x86 system builders (i.e., the system is probably more reliable, but don't expect much support.) You may not legally be able to use the cheapo versions, but you're free to buy OEM copies at a hefty discount, and you have little to lose.
Given how much more pleasant installing Windows under Parallels is said to be, and how much more painless running any version of Windows inside a virtual machine definitely is, think of any extra cost as being well worth while.
This is completely false. The license forbids users running home versions of Vista in Parallels or, in fact, in any VM software, such as, surprise, surprise, VMWare, which is a big competitor to Microsoft's Virtual PC and which Microsoft is trying desperately to kill. Those users who do need Windows on a Mac mostly need it to a)play games, in which case, they will definitely not do it in a VM, or b)do office work or run some proprietary Windows only software, in which case they'll more likely than not be running Vista Business.
..... simply dual boot in the Bootcamp partition and run Vista Premium natively.
If Home users on Macs want Vista Premium to Game they can,........ wait for it
and 10.4.2 came out with a skiing widget
OOH BURN! WINDOWS SUCKS! WHAT CHOO GONNA DO NOW
I would be rdoger6424, but AC for now because of my moderating
But could you get updates from Microsoft for all 473 computers in your basement? How important is that? I don't know, but after a close personal experience with Vista I'm not confident that they couldn't simply "turn off" my ability to use the operating system on any system they didn't like. Vista feels so locked down to me that I doubt it's usability for anything that Microsoft doesn't like.
I don't know enough about virtualization to know this - can Windows tell it's being run in a VM? More important, can Microsoft tell that a copy of Windows is running in a VM when WGA does it's dirty work?
You are welcome on my lawn.
That's a completely different can of worms though. That's a matter of Microsoft DRM preventing what you can actually do, not a matter of what you should legally be able to do.
I guess the option here is simply... don't run Windows, I guess.
(IANAL) If it restricts actions which would otherwise be allowed, it's not a license. A license by its nature must grant you a right you do not otherwise have. The idea behind EULA's is that under some theories of copyright law you do not have the right to copy the software from the CD to your hard drive. The EULA grants you that right.
Say I buy a computer without an operating system and put Windows Vista on it. That copy of Vista, which was seperate to the hardware, is now locked to the hardware that it is installed on. If I buy a new computer, again without and operating system, I cannot transfer my license from the original PC to the new one, I have to buy a new copy of the operating system. I can wipe the hard drive of the original computer clean so that no traces of Microsoft OS' are there but I can't install it on a new PC.
I believe that tends to depend on the version you buy. At one point the EULA for the full version said that but I believe that MS recanted than and made installs unlimited.In fact now that I think of it, it was originally reinstall on one new system but that was expanded to unlimited but only one copy installed at a time.
Now the OEM version is a different story and that is tied to the hardware on which it's first installed. Assuming of course VISTA still has an OEM version.
RTFE (Read The F*ckin EULA). The license restriction is simply that, if you boot Vista Home etc. in a VM, you are not allowed to use it to play DRM'ed content, specifically, HDCP protected content.
That is it. It's that simple. And really, a perfectly reasonable justification. Weather you agree with DRM or not (I don't), you can't argue that it would not be absolutely retarded legality and engineering wise to allow a DRM system that relies on things supposed to be kept secret inside a VM.
People here complain about the GPL but at least the GPL does not apply to you if you are merely USING the software.
Indeed, which is why the many open source programs that require you to agree to the GPL on installation (of the binary only release!) really get my goat.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
[n/t]
Let is also assume that modern x86 CPUs translate their instructions to RISC at runtime. Granted, it's not quite so simple however, IIRC is partially true for all x86 chips after the original Pentium.
Now let's read Microsoft's EULA:
Err, Microsoft... dudes... That includes all current x86 based PCs!!!
As I suppose is typical for Slashdot, the submission and subsequent posts should be "Score:-1 Irrelevant".
What nobody seems to have questioned is why any Mac or OS user would want Vista in the first place, let alone consider paying for it.
Move along, nothing to see here...
or b)do office work or run some proprietary Windows only software, in which case they'll more likely than not be running Vista Business.
*whack*
Have a clue: "run some proprietary Windows only software" is not equivalent to "do office work", and does not imply "running Vista Business".
That's how I understand it too. It says that you can't run on a VM the software installed on a licensed machine, which IMHO means that once the windows is installed on a machine, you can't run it on a VM on the same or another machine. I'd think it would be on the clear if you get a copy of windows specifically to run in a VM, since the VM then becomes the licensed machine.
It's just the way it has always been only that they changed the wording to specify VMs. If any from a legal standpoint they actually gave more options by including an extra license for VMs on one version. Of course you could install windows in as many computers (and VMs) as you could, just as I guess you will be able to with vista when it's cracked (if it hasn't been already, chances are it has), but from the EULA's standpoint it has always been 1 license for each computer (counting a VM as a computer too)
It's not about the Mac's. They just don't want you to run Vista under
a VM under Linux. It might be possible for Vista to detect that
it was running under a VM and shut down, maybe not.
The last x86-family processor that did not emulate x86 code on a "RISC core" was the 80386. All Intel and AMD chips that run x86 code since the 486 have emulated the x86 instruction set using just-in-time translation into RISC or VLIW opcodes.
So if this license is read literally, it means the last x86-based CPU it's legal to run Vista on is the 80386, and Vista won't run on that.
Do they have Vista on the Itanium yet?
Viewed in that context, the EULA could be considered "damage limitation", that actually, they *will* explicitly let you copy it, but on their terms. Legally, if what I said above holds, then any "rights" the EULA gives you which are weaker than the (arguably) implied rights that you (again arguably) already have, they should be irrelevant. But I suspect they may be able to get away with fudging this sort of issue due to the vagueness of user rights in the first place.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
The enforceability, or lack there of, of EULA's has absolutely nothing to do with whether the vendor is a monopolist or not. The reason that EULA's are not generally considered to be enforceable is that there is no consideration given by the software companies. In a contract, both parties have to give consideration (give something up to the other). When I purchase a software package, the already is a contract. I am purchasing the software in exchange for money. WHen Microsoft (or Apple) decides that I can't use the software in this or that capacity (after the purchase no less), I am giving up something (certain rights to use the software), but the software company is not giving up anything. Don't say, that they are allowing me to use the software. That right was given to me when I forked over my cash.
The only restrictions that are enforceable with regards to software are those that are protected by law, ie copyright. I can pretty much do whatever I want with software that I purchased, but I cannot make copies of the software and distribute them. I can't purchase one copy and then install it on 100 of my machines. This is the case not because the EULA said so, but because copyright says so. And thanks to the DMCA, I can't publish or distribute any workarounds for any technical restrictions that the software may include
If I figure out a way of getting Mac OS X to run on my beige box PC, I have broken no law and violated no contract. I am not allowed to distribute the OS, and under the DMCA I probably wouldn't be allowed to publish how I did it, but within the confines of my home I would be allowed to do it.
Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid
This statement is so utterly wrong on so many levels... At the very least, give me a reference to back this up. You can't, and I know you can't because I just spent the last 30 minutes looking up "common law" (which generally applies to BRITISH COLONIES...)
How is this INSIGHTFUL?
Fuck Microsoft. Enough said.
-Yim
If I'm reading this correctly, you can still run Vista Home Edition on a Mac. You would want to use Boot Camp, which is a dual boot solution. In that scenario, you are running on the bare metal. Granted, it is not the preferred solution (having to reboot just to run a simple application), but it would get it done.
Only users of VMWare or Parallels would be impacted. Of course, so would users of other virtualization platforms on other OSes (Windows, Linux, etc.).
One aspect of this topic I haven't yet seen raised on Slashdot is the following: If low-end Vista will refuse to run on virtual machines, how, exactly, will they actually accomplish this??
The whole _point_ of virtual machines is that the hosted operating system can't tell that it's running on a VM -- it runs exactly as it would on real hardware.
Now, perhaps they've struck some sort of ridiculous deal with Parallels and VMWare stopping them from "covering up" the VM's tracks so that it will always be detectable, (though I don't see why they would ever sign such a deal, except out of fear) but I can't see this happening with free software, like Qemu. Rather, I can see some hackers specifically coming out with "vista-ready" versions of Qemu or whatnot.
So, assuming the threat is that MS will sue if a VM was published that can't be detected by Vista, would they even have a case? On what basis would this case be made?
Its not a tax. They are just forcing you to use the higher end versions of their product.
Now if NO standard versions worked, and you had to buy Vista Standard for Mac, Vista Enterprise for Mac, etc. and they were all a higher cost than their regular PC counterparts, THAT would be a tax.
What a joke....
99% of software runs on xp/win2k, very little of it is vista only, and it cannot offer anything exclusive.
just buy the cheapest bare ass PC, with no KB/monitor and use it via VNC.
Pay for vista, what a joke, just use OEM pcs with xp.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Hasn't Billy boy screwed us out of more than enough money with this Windows shit?
I'm working with some developers who are working with the Media Center Edition of Windows. The one designer working on the UI of course owns a couple Macs and we were just shopping around yesterday for the versions of Windows (XP MCE and Vista Home Premium) to load onto his machine using Parallels. What's REALLY annoying is the fact he wants to develop for Vista Home so he can have a testbed environment for home users as he develops. Microsoft is in essence telling him he can't do that but can only load Professional on his machine. What a load of crap...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
>> Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax
For at least 10 seconds I thought "Mac" was a verb
My theory is that they do that so that people understand that the software is copyrighted even though it is free of charge. Some people tend to believe that free software is public domain, and that you can do anything you want with it, such as including it into proprietary derivative works. Those people need to realize that it is not, and that is usually when they start complaining about the GPL and the "unfairness" of not letting them use it in derivative works without also distributing the source under the GPL.
The structure of our legal system was based on concepts from the British Common Law.
It's competition for Microsoft. I'm not sure why they would charge a Mac user more for the OS?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Wow, yes, I do believe it's the first time anyone's ever questioned why someone would want Vista. Nobody in the history of "running Microsoft operating systems on computers that generally run some other OS" has ever asked the question "Why would anyone ever run {Microsoft's latest version of Windows}" to the best of my knowledge. It's a completely new and original question, and I believe we should call it the "BrokenHalo" question in honour of the first person in the history of the universe to ever ask it.
As for why, well the answer is because people want or need to run software that is only available for Windows, an increasing amount of which over the next few years will only run on {Microsoft's latest version of Windows}.
That's probably the majority answer, but you should probably be told that some Mac users prefer Windows to Mac OS X. They're a minority, but they do exist. They like the Apple hardware or something, but just feel more comfortable with the way Windows works. (I'm kind of the opposite, I hate the hardware but love the software, but I'm in a minority too.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You're used to paying more for your PCs.
Please go back to gloating how your Mac is superior due to Jobs' refusal to open the system up.
TIA
Someone who could care less
You make a very ill advised and novice arguement here i'm afraid. Firstly you are not allowed to do "damn near anything" with it. You bought the RIGHT TO USE it, you didn't buy it outright. Microsoft still own the rights to VISTA. When you purchase the RIGHT TO USE software you do so within the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA). These typically vary from publisher to publisher. Whilst criminal copyright laws do exist, if you breach a civil agreement held between you and a software publisher, ie an EULA, you run the risk of being prosecuted for breaking the terms of the agreement. You will find that there are numerous cases of litigation which show very well that there are in fact many "God damned things in the world" allowing them to dictate how you use their property. I reiterate that the software is still their property. Sadly the law isnt as simple as "its your right if you paid for it" things are a bit more complicated in this day and age i'm afraid! People will argue about the validity of EULA's till the cows come home but the idea of an EULA is that it is an agreement set up between the publisher and the user. An agreement of trust. If cases go to court, typically that means that the trust has been breached. Why shouldn't the creator of the intellectual property specify how it should be used? Just because the theft does not deprive the owner of the ability to use what has been created, doesn't mean it's ok to break a contract. The EULA has to be accepted before the product is installed. If you decline to accept the EULA you are within your rights to return the sotware and ask for a full refund! (to which you are entitled) If you don't like the terms of their EULA then refrain from using it, instead of finding holes in their terms.
The MacFIAA have spoken (By the way sunshine: you better take those criticisms back, or that insufficiently protected Windows server of yours might just have a 'little accident'...)!
The common law is the body of case law in a given jurisdiction. It originated in England, as compared to the civil law countries of the European continent (and Quebec and Louisiana, going back to their French roots). English colonies inherited the common law and, by and large, are still common law jurisdictions today. That includes every state in the US (other than Louisiana) that was added after independence.
Now, as to the common law of contract, the statement is still not necessarily right. General rule of thumb: Don't get your legal advice from Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Internet.
- NPOV disputes
- Wikipedia articles needing factual verification
- Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007
- All articles with unsourced statements
More importantly, read about Wikipedia's stance on legal advice. Finally, remember not to get legal advice from the internet. Not from Slashdot, and not from Wikipedia.I don't know about reading the comments, but tags certainly help me find out what is not quite right on the front page. In fact, I probably wouldn't have read the comments at all if the tags hadn't lambasted the article summary.
Millions long for immortality who do not know what to do with themselves on a rainy Sunday afternoon. -- Susan Ertz
You wanna run Vista? Now there's a wild concept.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I disagree. I think that the copy of the program you purchased is yours. In the same as when you buy a painting, a photograph or a postcard, you own that particular painting, photograph or postcard even though you do not own the copyright to the image portrayed on it. Microsoft retain the copyright in the program, but I suggest that you own the actual copy you purchased.
Here in Quebec, you just can't make me sign an agreement AFTER I bought your product, you have to disclose it BEFORE I buy it and make me sign it. So, in essence, I'm not bound by this EULA, whatever Microsoft think. And if they want to remove me my rights to use the product I bought (not that I would buy anything from Microsoft), I have a government agency to defend me http://www.bbb-bec.com/main.cfm?p=280&l=en
Avoid the MS tax, always buy I.B.M. PC's (I Built-it Myself)
I think this is why the new version of MS VirtualPC "supports" Vista for the first time. They probably put something in there to eep you from cloning your VMs on to multiple installations of VirtualPC. I've never tried before but I assume that XP can't tell the difference between multiple installations of VPC and therefore probably won't try to reactivate. I was never able to get Vista running in the current version of VPC because I didn't have enough free memory to get Vista past the 512MB check. But I assume it will probably work.
Let's suppose I'd want to run Vista on a VM.
Let's suppose the VM runs on Vista (the main SO in my test PC).
Has anyone thought the absurd hardware it'd need to run vista, virtualize hardware and run Vista again, plus the program I was really wanting to execute?
Any recent vista 'Capable' harware would support such a waste of CPU cycles?
Last I checked, using software is not forbidden by statute, so I already have "permission" to use the software.
http://outcampaign.org/
This article and the resulting comments have more FUD in them than US politicians.
/. is.
;)
/. article, hence why I'm leaving that as is. Plus I'm too lazy to rewrite it, my class is over now. Enjoy, and maybe at least one person that reads this will stop spewing quite as much FUD as before.
A summary of points:
1) Vista doesn't let you install it on virtual machines unless you buy the expensive version - no matter what your base OS. Some comments were like "Vista has to be in charge [to blah blah]." Ridiculous. That's something you just made up because you have false beliefs about Windows.
1b) THIS DOESN'T AFFECT BOOTCAMP! So the title is entirely wrong, Mac users actually have an easier/cheaper time installing a Vista version than someone running Windows and a VM.
2) Microsoft freaking wrote Vista, they are certainly not obligated to include features (like running on a virtual machine) because you feel you ahve a legal "right" to. If you don't want it, stay with XP, with a Mac, with Linux, or write your own if you're gonna be so picky. MS is a COMPANY, not the government. They don't HAVE to give you anything. You have alternatives. The only people that truly don't know anything other than Windows for an OC don't care, and don't even know wtf
3) WTF is a "Windows PC"??? Windows is an OS. Unlike you Mac people, we have the option of buying or building our own computer (easily, I guess you could for a Mac, but what's the point?). Dell sells PCs. Newegg sells PC parts. HP sells PCs. Microsoft sells OSs. Get it?
4) What's all this about Steve Jobs being "innovative" and Gates being an "evil monopoly?" Yea sure they got sued, but guess what, they aren't being sued anymore. If you want to accuse MS of being a monopoly, write your own damn OS and try to sell it. Apple is their only commercial competition (Linux is free), and they don't let you run OSX on a non-Apple PC. So basically you're accusing a company of a monopoly because the competition refuses to compete in the same market (OS for non-Apple PCs). That entire argument is so 1999.
5) Personally, I think the Mac users are the ones that don't know shit about their computer. A lot of Mac sales are because people think they are "cool." The rest are people that are disgruntled with Windows, and don't mind not having control over their actual computer (the physical thing, not some stupid OS). What is so much better about paying extra for a computer as a whole that you can't upgrade. I built my computer and I'm certainly not going to give up that ability for some company that won't let anyone else run their OS.
-------
Yes, some of you might see the above post as a little biased. I don't really see the point of writing out an objective arguement for this 1
Your opinion of the purchase is irrelevant. Until Microsoft's claim is denied in court, you are wrong.
Apple would say that their operating system is merely an upgradeable PART of an Apple COMPUTER. Have you not noticed the fact that Apple OSs don't actually have serial numbers? They don't have them because the hardware part of the computer has it.
Actually, having a benifit to both sides does not necessarily result in consideration for a contract. It could be a mutual gift.
However, mutual detriment is enough to establish consideration for a contract.
In general, there must be a benefit to the person making the promise, and a detriment to the agreeing to the promise.
This general rule cuts across civil and common law in most countries, unless modified by statute, which it often is.
So why hasn't Apple made it easier to run OS X on a PC? If interoperability is going to be the bar Microsoft is going to be measured by, why set it any lower for Apple?
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." -George Carlin
In the case of dipshit vs. fucknut, the if it were even sane it's just fucking retarded defense was overturned. Check your precedents, please.
BTW, I'm not calling you a dipshit or a fucknut. I just thought it would be a funny name for a case.
"You own the box, you own the CD that came in the box, you own the papers in the box. You don't own the program, you are merely licensing it's use from MS under the terms they dictate."
It all seems a bit moot to me. If you try to install it on a VM, won't their "call home" trick prevent it from being fully unlocked? (or did I miss the memo that Vista did away with XP's protection scheme?)
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Let's see you try to legally run OSX on a white box or non-Apple branded PC. Same internal components but if it's not personally anointed by Steve Jobs, you can't run OSX on it. You can find patched OSX.4 ISOs floating around the wbe that work just fine on most white box PCs but all you hear is the whining of Mac users about piracy, blah blah blah, all the while running their friend's or work's copy of Photoshop and Word.
Microsoft hasn't been convicted of being a monopoly. It's not illegal to have a monopoly.
They have been convicted of abusing their monopoly, which is illegal according to anti-trust laws.
Nah, I'm only on slashdot for the chicks
While I agree in sentiment, and I despise Microsoft, I also believe in playing by the rules. If they say that the cheaper "Home" versions are not allowed to run on VMs, then they have every right to make the user follow suit. It's Microsoft's product and the user does not own it. The user only has permission to use Windows as Microsoft sees fit. The fact that people have, for years, been using Microsoft software and operating systems in ways the Microsoft might not like does not mean that people have the right to use the software the way they do. It simply means that Microsoft has not had enough control over what users do with their products and that is starting to change. I applaud Microsoft for finding ways to regain control over their property and wrest it back from users who think they have more rights than they actually do.
That's also why I refuse to run any Microsoft operating system on my own personal machines with the exception of a VM. That also means, if I want Vista, I will buy the Business or Ultimate edition simply to keep up with the alternative platform. (My main platform is GNU/Linux. The Gentoo distribution) And thanks to the power of virtual machines, even if I have to pay through the nose for one copy of Windows, it is NOT locked to one box. Thanks to the rdesktop client, I can use one copy of Windows on any machine in the house. I recently did this with Xen and Windows XP Pro. The Windows install doesn't exist anywhere other than within a VM. I can use this VM on my widescreen HDTV monitor in the living room. I can use it on my laptop. I can use it on any of my desktops at home. I can even use it at work over my personal VPN thanks to bandwidth compression. I suspect this is what Microsoft doesn't want people doing. The max number of copies I'd ever need to spend money on would be three. One for myself, one for my wife and one for my daughter once she's in school and needs access to Microsoft applications as deemed by the school. But those VMs would be usable on ANY machine in the house or via VPN. So they are not locked to a desktop.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I know that this discussion is dead, but if someone reads this please tell me: why would I buy vista to dual-boot my mac (or run in a VM)?
Any program that I want to run will run fine in XP, and XP is easier on the hardware. I see absolutely no point to purchasing Vista right now for the purpose of dual-booting/VMing a Mac. It just makes no sense.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Luckily, they haven't changed the license agreement on the BitTorrent version of Vista, the only one I'm even mildly interested in anyway.
Vista performs miserably under Parallels on OS X, primarily because Parallels emulates a basic 8MB video card. XP runs quite nicely, as does Vista using Boot Camp, but Vista on Parallels is shite.
I can't run Mac OS X at all in a virtual machine!
(Sure, there are ways, but none of them is supported by any virtualization provider: vmware, paralells, virtual pc....)
xer.xes -- 4181
The poster was reading the license wrong
You may not use the software installed on the licensed device... - this implies that you have a licensed device already (e.g. the primary install) and are trying to install on additional virtual machines. Usually when you see this, it is in a QA environment running something like VMWare and faking 2-4 separate machines (commonly used for keeping multiple builds or network environments around).
A mac specific example would be if you installed Windows using Boot Camp (or other install) and then tried to install a virtual copy using Parallels or VMWare.
haven't been around very long I see. It's called the "tying arrangement" and if you were REALLY interested, it's just a google search away. But I'll help you a bit.
t
http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-antitrust-ac
NOTE: look for the part called "tying arrangement".
LoB LOL
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Exactly. It says you may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. Aka, you install it on your PC, the licensed device, then want to install it again inside vmware. It does not say that the licensed device cannot be a virtual hardware system.
>>Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property.
Sure, you can do anything you want with it. But, if msft choses not to activate, you've bought a whole lot of nothing.
Nicely put and it sounds like this whole thing is a non-issue. That is unless just the threat of Microsoft pulling you into court scares you.
As you stated it, it sounds like they would never want this to go to court since it's likely the whole EULA threat would be washed away. But, who would be willing to pay for a 5+ year court battle with Microsoft regardless of the truthiness of it all?
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
So if Sony includes a EULA notice inside the packaging for my new Incubus CD, (assuming I'd even buy a CD from sony *snicker*) proclaiming that I an only licensed to play it on Sony brand CD players, you think that's legally binding?
And Sony could sue and win if they found out I was playing it on a Pioneer?
Music is classed as IP.
This example is just as stupid (and unenforceable) as MS telling you what kind of machine you're allowed to install on (real vs virtual).
Disagree with the EULA. None of the restrictions therefore apply to you, except those of copyright.
Now, lend the copy (not copyright controlled action) to someone. They agree to the license. The don't install that copy to more than one machine. They hand the CD back to you.
You then lend the copy to someone. They agree to the license....
right you are and I need to be more aware of how I use the term, monopoly. There is nothing wrong with being a monopoly and it's the goal of many businesses. It's just that the "business game" changes when you are a monopoly. Well, unless you are Microsoft...
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The word to use here is "merchantability". If the package does not state the limitation, the user has the right to return the product for a full refund on any issue he discovers that will not let him use the product after he opens it. The buyer has the right to expect use based on what is on the outside of the package. Otherwise, it the seller is liable for fraud.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
It's simple contract law. When you go to the store and purchase the software, you are actually purchasing a license (and the media it comes on). This initiates the contract between you and the software publisher, the terms of which should be printed where it can be read before purchase (such as on the box). At this point, the contact has been initiated (by the exchange of goods in the form of currency). If, upon installing the software, you are presented with an EULA that is contrary to the already agreed upon terms of the contract, this is a change in the terms of the contract which must be agreed upon by both parties or else the existing terms are used. If you do not agree to the EULA (if it is contrary to the previously established contract terms), preventing the installation of the software would be a violation of contract law on the software publisher's part.\
Now, if the terms of the license are available at the point of purchase, prior to the sale, then it's a completely different story.
It's called a bait-and-switch scheme, and it is quite illegal.
The software still belongs to Microsoft, when you buy one of their CDs you are just licensing the use of it. Which sucks, but they can afford lawyers, so what can you do?
How dare you be so modest!! You conceited bastard!!
You bought it, it's your property.
heh... the best you can do with most software is rent it, especially from Microsoft.
Most of the stuff on
Or you could say, until Microsoft's claim is proven in court...
Until all this EULA bs is proven or denied in a court all this debate is toothless. Abiding by the EULA is just playing it safe, but not yet a proven requirement.
This has not been tested in court. This is the BS that software companies like to spew but in reality, what can they do about it?
But seriously, is MS going to sue people who install Vista Home Basic on Paralells? The real intention of the "No virtualization" is to milk more money out of corporate development environments so they can't just buy cheap copies of Vista to throw on their testing VMs.
Corporations are really the only ones at any risk of seeing the "licensing police" (the SPA, the software equivalent of the RIAA/MPAA.) Small businesses and individuals just aren't worth their time.
You may have some ethical grounds there. but the way copyright law works in a vast majority of the world it does not work that way. Your choices are:
1. accept the licensing terms of the copyright holder.
2. do not use the software.
If you want to play with analogies it is more like renting an apartment. You can only use the apartment according to terms set by the property owner. Even though you are paying money for it.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
XP has a protection scheme?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Apple has a monopoly on MP3 players in a legal sense and has been convicted in Norway of abusing that.
Next.
The virtualization clause is just that, you can't run it in a virtual environment, such as VMWare, Parallels, or Virtual PC.
Furthermore a Mac is not pretending to be a PC, if we want to get technical it is a PC with no BIOS.
Does a processor which translates x86 instructions on the fly in hardware count as an "otherwise emulated hardware system?"
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
If they say that the cheaper "Home" versions are not allowed to run on VMs, then they have every right to make the user follow suit.
No they don't, unless the user has agreed to a contract to that effect. By any reasonable definition of "contract", EULAs aren't even close.
It's Microsoft's product and the user does not own it.
You do own the copy of the software that you bought, just like you own the copy of a book that you buy. What you don't own is the copyright, which means there are specific things you are forbidden to do. But copyright does not equal absolute control over use, contrary to what Microsoft and the **AAs would have you believe.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Better word for it. Thank you. And I agree, until it is challenged, we have little to argue about.
Currently, if Microsoft decides you violated their EULA, they can revoke your key and potentially kill your install.
That said, Microsoft is taking a page from the *nix vendors they've spent so long bashing for expensive licenses. First they took away per user (you could install on two machines if you only used one at a time, like home/work) Then they tied the software to the motherboard with XP SP2 & WGA. Now they are saying you can only INSTALL or RUN ONE copy of the software on a machine. That's a step too far. Traditional VM tech allows you to take ONE install and divide it up into memory how you see fit. Microsoft wants to rewrite the rules to make you pay more to make their software more efficent.
It all goes back to one of the original software copyright rulings that said the computer processor's internal "copying" to memory and hard disk could be considered "infringement" even though that's how it's supposed to work!!! Not to put too fine a point on it but GPL allows UNLIMITED running on a computer without restriction!!! Specifically because of that silly ruling.
I don't think that would hold up in court. Microsoft has more money than you or I do, so any challenge of a EULA is likely to come out in their favor. I'm not willing to risk it.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
and how does that relate to Microsoft Visa running in a VM( on a PC) and the MS Vista EULA?
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Apple is more restrictive. Not licensing an OS in the first place is more restrictive then licensing it then puting restrictions on it. What your say is equivelent to my mom is less restrictive because she lets me do anything I want when I'm at home, she just doesn't let me leave house, but my dad, that punk lets me go anyware I want as long as I don't do drugs, have sex and I have to wear the close he picks. Apple doesn't just have a limited pool of hardware, they restrict that pool of hardware so it consists mainly of.... their own hardware. If I want to run OSX I can't shop around for the hardware that fits me, its a one size fits all product line. I also can't really build my own machines if I go with OSX. You can down play that all you want but it not going to change anything for people who want a choice in hardware or a person who likes to build their own machine.
Support is expensive! I thought the reason for MS requiring the expensive Vista was because of support costs. I can empathise; an hour of technical support must cost Microsoft at least $25 if the guy is in India, or $100 if the guy is in the US.
No, I will not work for your startup
The EULA is used to get the end user to agree to terms that protect the software manufacturer, and limit the rights the end user has beyond those given by bill-of-sale rights. This might not be completely legal, but companies work that angle this way: no end user wants to go to court, so unless they are inconvenienced more by agreeing to the EULA than they would be by going to court, they'll follow it.
This handles enterprise users, where someone on the IT staff actually has to read the license and agree to it. For consumer EULAs, FUD really *is* the word. You see, everything gets packed into the EULA, which nobody reads. Then, someone posts something on SlashDot about how such and such a thing is not allowed. Rather than reading the EULA, people for the most part comply.
Similarly, for small businesses, the EULA is generally used to grant the BSA the right to enter the premises and do whatever they want with your hardware and software. Again, this isn't legal, but if a small business owner feels they haven't done anything wrong, they'd prefer the BSA running an audit than to wage a legal battle with a large company. The costs, while still significant, are generally less than those of hiring a lawyer and going to court.
Well, the problem with implying that "Buy a Mac = OS X Tax, Buy a PC = Windows Tax" is that their isn't ACTUALLY an OS X tax.
If I buy a Dell or other company that does not sell bare bones machines, they sell it to me for what the market will bear, and their costs are: hardware + OS license. Assuming that supply and demand set the "what the market will bear" price, than the cost of the OEM license affects the supply curve, which raises the price on the computer. If you assume that if OS software was free, this cost goes away, and the market price adjust accordingly, the price of computers would drop. So far I've said nothing earth shattering other than apply high school level micro-econ terms to how everyone understands the computer market. However, not that to Dell, they may pay $30 for Windows, $70 for the Mobo, and $50 for the processor (plus other parts), to Dell, EACH computer has a marginal cost associated with the OS. While it costs $0 to install the OS image onto the hardware, they pay MS per-computer-sold, which makes the cost no different from other hard costs.
Now, we walk over to Apple. Apple does NOT pay a per-computer fee to an outside agency. They MAY use transfer pricing for internal metrics/bonus structure, but when Apple sells "1 more Apple computer", they don't pay for the OS. They buy the mobo, CPU, hard drive, case, etc., but they do not buy 1 more copy of the OS. Sure, Apple needs to recover the R&D/other costs of developing the OS, but that's Apple's problem. If Apple spends $250m/year developing OS X, they will spend $250m/year whether they sell 1m Apple Computers or 10m Apple computers. While they WANT to recover those costs from the profitable sale of hardware, because of the nature of the software, they actually have an advantage in some ways.
When Dell sells that last computer, they need to recover the A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, C) cost of Windows OS, plus make D) some gross margin that makes the proccess worthwhile.
When Apple sells that last computer, they need to recover A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, plus C) some gross margin that makes the process worthwhile.
When Dell moves an extra 100,000 computers in the quarter, their check to Microsoft increases with those computers. When Apple moves an extra 100,000 computers, they don't have that costs. Amortizing the cost of the OS across the computers sold is an accounting fiction. Ultimately they can sell the computers at the same price as Dell MINUS the cost of Windows, and if they pay the same for hardware, have the same gross profit margins in their hardware division.
When Apple puts out financials, the R&D costs come out as expenses and take away from profits. But when economically deciding whether to move that last machine, Apple is at a cost advantage because they do NOT pay an OS cost when they sell one more machine. I have no idea how many shrink wrap copies of OS X they sell for OS upgrades, but given how much nimbler Apple is plus their leverage of Free and Open Source software packages, I wouldn't be shocked if the shrink wrapped copies actually cover their development costs (or close to it), essentially giving them a free OS to include in new computers.
Remember, software is HIGH fixed costs, ZERO marginal costs... that's what lends itself to the natural monopoly status that Microsoft enjoyed for years. However, as Microsoft's PRICING scheme to OEMs is set, to the OEM, software is LOW fixed costs (testing), plus HIGH marginal costs, which keeps prices higher in the short run. Remember, Microsoft's pricing has been pretty constant since the Win95/NT4 days (only now there is one NT6-based OS, but priced for Consumer/Business), but while inflation has lowered their prices 3%/year, hardware has plummeted. In 1995, computers were around $1500-$2000 for mid-range, by the year 2000, it was down to $1000-$1500, and today, it's $500-$1000 for midrange. That $50 MS OEM license was cheap on a $2000 computer (1/40th the price
When you buy the computer from Dell, $35, $50, $75 or whatever OF that price goes to Microsoft. Not theoretically, actually... At the end of the week, if Dell moved 100,000 machines at a $50 OEM price (average business + consumer and rounded to something simple), Dell writes a check for $5,000,000 to Microsoft. (Actually, the probably do estimated monthly payments, with a quarterly reconciliation, but the point is, an ACTUAL cash payment went to Dell to cover YOUR copy of the OS).
When you buy the computer from Apple, $0 goes to Microsoft for the OS. Apple may internally transfer $50 from the hardware division to the OS X division, but managerial accounting rules like that are for executive bonus structure.
If Apple spends $250m developing the OS, Apple spends that $250m regardless of how many computers they sell. If Apple sold you the hardware with no operating system, the price would be the same. It costs Apple $0 to install the OS on the drive. They don't charge for it (they do charge you to upgrade it later), because it would be insane to.
If Apple didn't develop OS X, then they would have to buy an OS from Microsoft or do something else. They need an operating system.
The reason for the "tax" question...
Dell buys a Windows license, sticks it on a computer, charges you some price (of which the Windows license is more or less included -- without going into convoluted economic models, it may increase the price by more or less than the license). You then put Linux on it. You bought a copy of Windows, because the money was transfered out of Dell (whose goods and services you wanted) and handed to Microsoft Corporate (whose goods and services you did not want).
Apple does NOT buy an OS X license. Putting OS X on the hard drive costs 0. Selling you an OS X-less computer WOULD NOT lower their COGS (cost of goods sold) by $35 (Dell's would if there deal doesn't cover every machine shipped), therefore, there is no hidden Tax. Now, does Apple charge a slight premium price because of their OS? Whenever a similar/identical machine was priced out on Dell/HP's website, with the same specs as the OS X Computer (much easier to do now that the hardware is more similar), the Apple computer has been priced lower... this makes perfect sense, Apple is ZERO per-user OS licensing fees. Their internal software (iLife, iWork, OS X), while expensive to produce, cost $0 to duplicate, so throwing them in as sweeteners to move products makes sense (normally iLife + OS X, but I could see iWork starting to come new with certain Apple computers).
Apple's premium is that they have limited customizability and limited types of machines. In the Windows world, you can normally buy EXACTLY the features you need, while in Apple world you have to buy the lowest priced computer that meets OR exceeds your requirements (i.e. need quadruple monitors, but 1 hard drive and limited processing power and RAM, you have to buy a Mac Pro to get 4 monitors, while in Windows world you just buy a machine and a second video card, the Mac Pro is premium priced for lots of features that you may not want).
However, you are wrong, Apple doesn't "have to up the prices of hardware to make up for OS X," Apple charges what the market will bare. Whether OS X cost $1 trillion/year to develop or came down from heaven for $0/year, Apple's would still charge what the market will bare. The premium price Apple collects is that people value their machines more highly as a result of OS, it has NOTHING to do with the COST of developing OS X. Now, if OS X cost more to develop than that premium, Apple exists the Macintosh business... if OS X costs less to develop than the premium, Apple makes substantial profits. Right now, the market clearly seems to be saying the latter, but for a while it was the former and Apple had to shut down their OS development division (Copland) and ended up buying an Operating System (Next) for $400m.
Alex
You own the box, you own the CD that came in the box, you own the papers in the box. You don't own the program, you are merely licensing it's use from MS under the terms they dictate.
I don't own "MS POS 2007" or whatever, but I absolutely own *that one copy of it*. I don't have the right to make a million copies and hand them out, but I can certainly do whatever the hell I want with that copy. They can not dictate terms to me since I have never engaged in a transaction with them. I have never had any sort of relationship with them at all. I certainly did not sign any contracts. I never agreed to license shit from them. I have never once in my life purchased, licensed or in any other way engaged in commerce with Microsoft. I *bought* it from a computer store.
If I were to break into thre computer store and steal the box, then the computer store would call the cops, Microsoft wouldn't. They are in no way involved with the transaction.
"There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction."
You are simply wrong.
That is certainly a possibility I have to entertain, but I'm not aware of anything that could possibly make it true (in this one particular case
Indeed, I do not own it my new shiny copy of Vista, but neither does Microsoft (the term "intellectual property" is a sham pushed by corporations). They own the distribution rights of that work, and as such they are the only source by which duplicates of it can legally be made. If I wish to purchase a copy/duplicate of the work, I much purchase it from them. Copyright law however (even the mangled crap that is the DMCA), only covers the right to copy. Once I have paid for my copy, what I do with it (aside from making copies of it outside of my fair use rights) is none of their concern, and indeed I can do with it as I wish because it was a copy legally generated by them and paid for by me. While I didn't purchase the distribution rights, I most certain do own that copy of the software.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Vista needs about 15gb (minimum) of disk space. Why would you waste 15gb for a secondary OS in your Mac when there's a lot of porn and copyrighted content starving out there and looking for a warm spot in your cosy hard drive?
Besides, if you really need a Windows OS in your mac, use XP. It uses far less resources than Vista and the result is almost the same. Not to mention that areo's performance would be pretty bad in a virtualized environment (Disclarimer: Haven't tried this scenario yet)
Why bother with the virtualization when you can throw a hundred bucks and get a second-hand PC for windows? Oh wait, you cannot use it with Vista either.
It doesn't, however the post I replied to said that Apple wasn't a monopoly, which is simply not true.
I wish Apple would release OS X for white boxes too... or even get with IBM-I-mean-Lenovo and do another mashup like the Powerbook 2400 so I can have a decent laptop running a decent OS instead of having to pick one or the other.
But now we're agreed on that... what's your point? Two wrongs make a right? The shoe's on the other foot? Piracy is OK? What...?
for crying out loud, how off-topic do you people want to get? The topic is about desktop computers and the mention of Apple not being a monopoly was related to that, the desktop. Please look at the context of the thread.
Apples monopoly in handheld media players has nothing to do with running Windows in a VM or who Apple ties its desktop/server OS to its hardware.
Wow, there's some serious ADD going on here.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
It's pretty safe to say that the majority of virtual machines in the world are run on windows boxes... so what they are saying is that "a windows user can't run a cheap version of windows in a virtual machine... oh yeah and the few Mac users gotta pony up too"
The part I don't get is why. Most of the windows virtual machines in use today are used for development purposes... as a developer, I need to be able to test that my software works on all versions of windows... why the hell can't I run them all in a virtual machine?
This is just plain stupid.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Really, there's no point in buying it (even if you really want to run it), 'cos running it on virtuals seems to be illegal anyway. So, just use a pirated version! So as you're breaking the law anyway... ...unless you're rich and really want to support poor M$. I for one am definately not going to run any Windows without virtualisation. Just no safe enough.
Me think M$ is just shooting it's own leg with this restriction.
(Wonder why I wrote this as Anonymous Coward?)
We should all be fine running XP for quite a few more years. Let Bill charge all he wants; it's coming nowhere near my boxen, virtually or otherwise. :-)
My black MacBook kicks ass. It's a first-gen Core Duo (not 2) and rocks on OS X and Windows.
I do video editing in Final Cut, and lots of audio stuff in Reason and Logic. It absolutely murders the powerPC machines I've got.
Through Boot Camp, in Windows, it does everything I want it to (FEAR Multiplayer, Far Cry, EVE) without any issues.
Get the 2GB RAM right away so you don't end up with extra RAM sticks to get rid of.
It had some heat issues at first, but a firmware update took care of that, and now I'm about a month shy of owning it for a year. The machine is great.
???
Haven't experienced any of those, sorry. Nice FUD attempt, though.
I hit 'command-E' to eject.. works for me. Sometimes I use the dedicated eject button on the keyboard.
Copy files off a CD? they're wherever you left them. They don't just disappear.
Sorry, but Macs are far more intuitive. You just happen to be used to Windows and all its retarded quirks.
Your MacBook? That's odd behaviour. It's not normal. Your machine is broken. Since that's the case, that's not the experience most people have.
You should get it replaced. Not one of the 40 Intel Macs I'm in charge of have given me a kernel panic, not even once.
This is with lots of 3rd-party software loaded, most of it not even native to the platform yet. Office, CS2, Dreamweaver, fireworks, director, flash, misc utils, and AFP/VNC/FTP servers running nonstop on every one.
Get your Mac checked out, stop complaining, or both.
I think what this is about has very little to do with Apple specifically. What it is about is throwing a stick in the spokes of Virtual Machine technology as it relates to the common PC and workstation. They hope to cripple and confuse the VM issue long enough to develop counter measures. From what I have read recently the future of the PC OS will very likely include VM "Hyper-Visor" type code sitting between conventional OS services and the hardware. As usual with emerging technologies, it seems that Microsoft is lagging a bit behind several others in the implementation of virtualization. There is also the issue of whether they can ever manage to gain control of the technology. Others such as VMWare, Parallels, Novell, Sun and IBM have considerable experience and history, read patents out the yasoo, with the technology. With hardware due for a generational shift toward poly-core processors and serious hardware support for virtualization long before the five years it took to get Vista out the door, they had to address the issue. As typical for Microsoft, they choose to use a restrictive kludge instead of innovation, though I suspect it is the only real option they had ready.
I also suspect that the DRM technology built in to Vista may be of issue as well but I don't really know enough to speculate on these things. As for Apple they seem to have the same blinders on, or they maybe they are just holding their cards very very close, though I would think that any serious efforts at VM technology for OSX would leak from Apple dev labs if this were so. I may be seeing this wrong but from what I can tell VM technology could be the most promising and versatile technical advancement for user freedom and thus the most disruptive thing in computer OS software since GNU/Linux. I can see where Microsoft feels their only choice at this time is to muck the playing field. I would have been surprised if they had not done so.
Matthew