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.
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.
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
Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?
I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.
Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows.
boxlight
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
/)
The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.
I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.
It's actually kind of eerie how well it works!
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.
That depends on the definition of "emulated" you use. If somewhere toward the beginning, it talks about the use of a virtual machine or some other kind of software emulation, you'd have to test their definition. If the architecture is emulated in hardware, you'd be off the hook. There are protections against "unreasonable and unintended consequences" in contract language, and this would be one of them--but more importantly, you'd never need them because Microsoft would never construe microcode emulation to be in violation of their license. I suspect you were modded up simply because of your shrink wrap jab. Back in the real world, though, your concern has nothing to do with EULAs but rather contract language in general (that is, ALL contracts would be affected by this pedantry), especially those with more dire consequences (corporate licensing and binding stipulation).
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
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid
Taken from: wikipedia.
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.