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

Surprise!!!...not

[alshithead]

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Perseid]

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.

Re:Why not?

[Scudsucker]

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[beckerist]

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?

Re:you're missing the point

[ArbitraryConstant]

"You'll see OS X Server with virtualisation and unlimited installs of the OS on that VM in the very near future, I'm sure."

No doubt; just like we're going to see an upgradeable mini-tower RSN.

They don't allow it at all, and have announced no plans to ever allow it. As far as I'm concerned, the criticism stands until it's actually been announced.

"So, you have to buy a Mac, but you get practically unlimited installs. Not so with Microsoft."

This is why I specifically say "with respect to virtualization" in my post. We can go round and round in circles over whether or not getting any hardware you like beats unlimited installs on a very narrow range of hardware, but the question of virtualization is very simple; Apple doesn't allow it.