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.
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.
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.
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
Yup, me too. The question still remains, "Why Vista?" Why devote that large a chunk of your resources to an OS that spends most of its time making sure you're not being naughty?
I mean, XP is bad enough, but can be tamed. And it's going to be sufficient for any Windows operation you might want to perform on a Mac. I've got it running under Parallels, and it's not so bad.
But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
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
"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.
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
When you add an HD tuner or Blu-Ray drive to your Mac you will discover that the rules for HD content protection are the same.
Vista spends most of its time doing what OSX does most of its time: running applications and maintaining an end-user oriented GUI.
I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.
Yup, me too
But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.
Please explain to me how a programmer writing cross-platform apps in Java (or any other language) avoids testing on 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
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
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).