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.
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
Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?
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.
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.
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.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
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
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.
Agreed. And CodeWeavers are grinning ear to ear over the new market Apple and Microsoft have handed them for CrossOver Office for the Mac.
(Apple by switching to Intel allowed them to compile Wine with ease, the MS making to too darn expensive to run the occasional Windows binary using MS software.)
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.
1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Because if you only need to run one or two apps, it doesn't make much sense to have to shut down all your other apps just to run the few programs that don't run under OS X.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
Sounds like someone from Digg came to Slashdot to post the article. This is precisely the kind of tabloid-esque, inaccurate title for an article that Digg is now plagued with.
The concern is that they want you to buy 3 copies of Vista instead of cloning three VMWare images and running 3 machines on one fat piece of hardware.
I think it's more likely to be a case of "they don't want you to buy 1 copy of Vista, install it in a VM, and then put the VM image up on a BT tracker for a billion of your close personal friends".
Gee, can't see why Microsoft would have a problem with that...
Come on guys, Microsoft does enough retarded things. Don't bash it for the perfectly sensible things.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
"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
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.
The problem isn't that your choices are limited, the problem is that Microsoft lets you run your licensed copy of Vista ONLY if Vista is the primary booted OS and not virtual. Despite the fact that it's running on the same damn computer whether it's virtual or not. Oh, unless you pay them a few hundred bucks extra, then you can run it virtual. This is the typical age-old anti-trust behavior they've been engaging in for the past 20+ years. Apple on the other hand lets you do whatever the hell you want with the hardware and software. They allow you to do whatever you want with OS X, as long as you're running it on OS X supported hardware. You are complaining that the pool of OS X hardware is smaller, while most other people here are complaining that Microsoft charges you a hefty fee if you want to run Windows to run as a VM inside another OS even though you legally purchased it to work with that specific hardware. Apple gives you the same rights on the same hardware, Microsoft makes you pay more unless they're the OS 'in charge' on your system.
make world, not war
That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with.
Any stiffer than Apple forcing PC users to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS? I guess, by your own standards, it's just one more reason to never buy Apple.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"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.
"Yeah! And you know what? Car manufacturers are just as guilty! Can you believe that they charge more to have power door locks, power windows, and heated seats?"
I think comparisons with car manufacturers should be eschewed until the point in time when you can sue Microsoft for damages you incur while using their products. This applies to other software products as well, and as a Linux user I'm not too keen on having it applied to free software. But my point is that comparing software with almost any other commercial product doesn't work as long as companies make big bucks with almost no offsetting responsibilities. In a way I'm hopeful that Microsoft's pricing will become ever more monopolistic, forcing people to think about alternatives.
Yeah, but that's because it actually costs them more to fit them. The car doesn't come with those things fitted and then deliberately dissabled.
455fe10422ca29c4933f95052b792ab2
Choices not limited? Ummm, I can pretty much buy parts from any number of manufacturers and OEMs and install Vista/XP on it no problem and the license allows this. OSX on the other hand, sure you can probably install it on a lot of different types of hardware, but if you do you will be in direct violation of the OSX license, plus you better be a pretty smart guy as usually this involves using bootcamp in some sort of odd fashion.
How is this like the MS "age-old anti-trust behavior"? All they are saying is that we don't want to support running VMs on our most basic OS. It would be like trying to make your GE fridge act like a maytag dish washer, sure you can problem do it if you can figure out how, but don't go to either for help if you break something, you'll be paying for new parts.
As for running VM's, do you think there are home users, aka mom and dad that can barely can tell the difference between OSX and Vista, that really want to run Vista Home in a VM? I think not, the only people that want to do it are tech geeks that need to test software. Vista is clearly NOT a server class OS. If you are a developer and need to run lots of VMs, get Windows Server Ent, VMWare, whatever. Yes a lot more expensive, but they are supported and licensing isn't a problem. Then you can properly test all the software you want.
And yeah, maybe atcually RTFM. This article says VMs on Vista Home, of any kind, isn't allowed. So you can't even run Vista in a VM on a Vista host using MS'es free VirtualServer2005.
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
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.
The question is what is considered to be the "licensed device". If a VM can be considered the "licensed device", you can run Vista Home/Basic in an VM. If the physical hardware is considered the "licensed device", you can't run Vista Home/Basic in a VM. Given Microsoft make specific mention of things you won't be able to do in a VM for Ultimate (which is supposed to have every feature), but don't mention that loss of functionality for Basic or Home, I suspect that you won't be able to run Basic or Home in a VM at all. But whatever the license says, the decision in practice has been made and will be enforced by the Vista installer. Anybody actually tried it?
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
"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
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
Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.
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
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."
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
But then why don't they allow you legally to run ONE copy of Vista in a VM, if that's really their worry?
Assuming that EULAs actually have any legal basis in the first place. Even if that was the case the specific clause in question would have to have a legal basis. It isn't unknown for such documents to be stuffed full of questionable (even bogus) claims.
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
The license defines "licensed device" as "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." (quote from the license).
It is stated that the physical hardware is the "licensed device", so it is not possible to use these versions of Vista under a Virtual Machine (or emulation, eg. BOCHS).
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
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)?
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).
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.
You wanna run Vista? Now there's a wild concept.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News