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.

Comments

Re:Summary incorrect.

[PygmySurfer]

Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?

Mac with Bootcamp is not a virtual machine

[boxlight]

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

And Apple makes it easy to run OS X?

[MSFanBoi2]

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.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X?

[edwardpickman]

A little history lesson. Apple started out producing harware with their OS from day one. The primary reason is control. I've been using Microsoft OSs since the late 80s but up until lately they were a pain to configure and even now stability is dodgy because of all the hardware and software support. There's a price for everything. The Apple approach may seem more limiting but there are major benefits. Unlike PCs or Amigas they were never for tinkerers. You can do some minor upgrading but they largely come turnkey. If have a driving need to build your own go for it. Two of my three desktops I built but the Mac was turnkey. Gotta say it's been nice and I haven't had to do a thing to the OS except accept updates once a month. The PCs both require regular maintainence. They run more software but the Mac is more stable and simply works. I'm stuck with PCs due to software needs but if you want to talk pure fun to use it's a hands down win for the Mac.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X?

[dreamlax]

My iBook has crashed once since I purchased it in March 2006. You don't want to know how many times Windows has crashed on me on the many computers I work on. In fact I couldn't tell you. I've lost count.

Windows is great, sure. There's a lot of hardware out there, some users need a particular extension to their computer and chances are Windows can drive it. In my opinion, Macs don't even want to go there. They want to run on what they know they can run on, and run well. Because the operating system is designed around a very specific hardware model, they can increase performance and stability. They can ensure that their OS can run on that hardware smoothly. And because of that, they can support it better.

Windows on the other hand caters for so many different hardware setups. Different motherboard chipsets, different network controllers, different monitors and graphics cards. To ensure it runs on all of those is a massive task. They do it rather well, I think, considering the multitude of permutations.

So, when you buy a Mac, you buy it because you know what it can do, not what it could do if you added something. You buy a Mac based on particular requirements, the same reason you buy anything. Macs are reputable for being an out-of-the-box solution for common computing tasks; emails, word processing, internet surfing, photo sharing etc.

Each time I install XP, I am bombarded with the same questions over and over. It's the typical scenario to get anything to work in Windows. "Next, next, I agree, next, next, next, yes, next, next, reboot." You don't do that with a Mac. Hell, to install Office (or just about any app) on a Mac you drag it from the source/CD into your Applications folder. That makes a fucking shitload of sense. It's what you should do. On Windows, it's the whole "next, next" bullshit.

Here's the conclusion. You don't need to know how to use a computer to use a Mac. Everything is either explained in plain English or implemented so intuitively that it doesn't need an explanation. You can't possibly tell me that it is the same scenario for Windows.

Re:Surprise!!!...not

[pilkul]

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.

Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com]

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.

Re:Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com]

Yes, you don't get an OEM copy of Windows. Instead, you're forced to pay for an OEM copy of OSX included as part of the system's price, much like Windows is included as part of the system price of, say, a Dell.

I don't have a problem paying for the software that I want to run - do you?

I suppose if you wanted a MacBook _only_ for running Windows, which is conceivable, then you might have an issue with OSX being included. But that's not my situation.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[ozphx]

It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, you're not able to play or access content protected by Microsoft's digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption won't work.

Well of course it won't bloody work! If its running under emulation then: a) The system can be picked up and have bits of memory dumped. b) Theres no TPM, so theres no secure place to keep the keys. c) Hands up if you expect the MAFIAA to sign VMWare's emulated Protected Video Path drivers! They use ROT13.... twice!

Actually, you can't run Vista at all...

[msauve]

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.

Re:Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp

[SydShamino]

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.)

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Skreems]

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.

you're missing the point

[ArbitraryConstant]

"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.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[cmacb]

"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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[killjoe]

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[node 3]

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. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume this. None.

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)?