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.
Are obviously starting to make Microsoft worried. Good. :)
first post!! do I get a free vista??
If Ballmer wants Mac users to help subsidize Vista for the rest of us poor sods that run ugly beige boxes, I'm all for it. It will be up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it. And if it's not, I'd suggest they rush to CDW or whatever and get a copy of XP as soon as possible. They'll be able to use it until 2011 or so.
And besides, why would Mac users need Vista at all? That would be a direct contradiction of their own mantra.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
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.
So they can't use it in Parallels or whatever the vmware-equivalent is... neither can anyone else who wants to do it in vmware or VirtualBox
Bootcamp isn't emulated hardware last time I checked, it is just running Windows on the intel hardware
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
Just get the MSDN OS Subscription and you can use the cheap version under virtual environment! Why? Because it is then governed by the MSDN License not the OS License.
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.
I reserve the right to think for myself. Others' opinions are optional. Puppy on lap = typos...not illiteracy.
They made a movie about this starring Hillary Swank.
I just know I am going to get modded for this. Please be gentle. I believe Chairman Gates, when asked about why he wasn't allowing low end copies of Vista to be run virtually, his response was akin to, Consumers do not have the knowledge or technical expertise to run Vista in a virtual environment. Please! I think his statement was English for "You need to pay more money to us in order to do that."
Why can't the Mac users just boot directly into Vista?
Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.
is a Mac a Virtual machine? Mines pretty real (un-virtual). Really its sitting right here.
There is no difference between it and any other PC. Maybe you can't LEGALLY run Home Basic if you use Parallels or Virtual PC or whatnot.
But if you dual boot what's the difference besides, nothing?
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.
because only macs run virtual machines. lets ignore Vmware altogether. Oh yeah and boot camp does not exist. This is such an idiotic article.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Alternatives to doing this include:
* mailing a part of your anatomy to a loved one (William Gates);
* using Wine to run a limited set of programs in an almost functional way;
* switching to a different program that does the same thing natively on the Mac;
* using a multi-boot scenario to boot into another OS instead of OS/X;
* using VMWare (does this run under OS/X YET???) to create a VM that runs an MS OS;
* creating a VM that runs Win2K or XP and ignoring the "benefits" of Vista;
* running naked through the frigid streets with a placard reading "UBUNTU ROCKS, BABY!"
* Diazepam, lots and lots of Diazepam (generic of Vallium, for the uninitiated).
Enjoy your happy and carefree lifestyle of free choices freely made in a consequences free environment !!
[ Oh. Sorry. I forgot. There are consequences. Never mind. ]
Unitarian Church: Freethinkers Congregate!
...or any other boot loader like rEFIt is *not* a virtual machine. This only applies to people using paralells and the like and applies equally to *anyone* who runs Vista in a VM (and this was expected a while ago too I seem to remember)... In other words, this is non-news people...
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
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
I thought this battle over Mac PPC hardware being light years faster than Intel hardware was over when Mac started using Intel. Now they can run Vista in a virtual machine when most people would be happy to be able to run in on a real machine without it chugging.
We should now all go out and buy a Mac.
Seriously, they do mac some pretty cool hardware, buy one. you won't regret it.
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam
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.
I expect my hardware to work for me, not for you.
This is not just for macs, it is for all virtual machines. The reasons behind this is because normal users (i.e. Windows home users) won't use a virtual machine for emulation, besides mac users, who just happen to fall into a strange category. It was not designed specifically to be a Mac tax.
I seem to remember from ecomonics that while monopolies are legal, attempting to use it with anti-competitive practices such as price gouging the littling of remaining competition (e.g. Mac & Linux users interested in Vista to run a few apps that they can't natively.)
I question the legal merits of this.
Good job Redmond, kill your early adopters and sell your software only to the lockstep upgrade crowd.
I don't want my room filled with extra equipment. I don't want extra electricity used. I don't want to fill landfills with extra crap. And I don't want to have the inelegance of switching back and forth with a KVM switch.
Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they were able to run Windows apps on their Macs.
Just one more reason not to upgrade to Vista. That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with. Anyone want to guess what the main motivefor this is?
Yes, you are be legaly allowed to install Vista via bootcamp on a mac because all bootcamp does is set up a bootloader and HD partition and then burns a CDROM of drivers for you. No virtualisation envolved... unless 'They' claim that the bootloader is one ;)
This article should have been under a VMWare related thread. The pricing hits linux users most. (developers with win boxes propably are gona opt for the pro version anyway.)
Bootcamp is not virtualisation. You may still install windows on a separate partiaion of a Mac and boot from Vista individually. The special license only applies to virtualising Windows on a computer (any computer, wether it's another Windows machine, Linux or Apple). The title and topic of this article is misleading.
If one installs Vista (why? lol) in Boot Camp.. How is one stopped from using that as a launch image in Parallels ? I am happily running my (licensed) image of XP in Parallels, by using the Boot Camp image to launch.. I seem to recall having to enter my license number the first time i launched the VM image, but never after that (and it was because the "hardware" had changed (memory allocated was different)). After that initial request both boot camp and parallels launches proceed without interruption. I also read that Vista won't disable itself for a minor system change.. Has Redmond determined that each "hardware" change will make Vista "phone home" ? And thereby trigger the lawyers to send me a "nice" letter (or worse) were i to put a licenced copy of Vista on my Mac and try to launch the boot camp installed image from parallels ? Not that i would, just wondering :)
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
Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.
1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?
Like you said, it's *only* been reported 17 times.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
This has to do with running Vista on a VM - ANY VM! I doubt Microsoft did this just to screw Apple users. Sounds like the anonymous Apple fanboi that posted the article has his head too far up his ass.
We just started experimenting with parallels, and we got one disappointing surprise:
Parallels is designed for a single user. Each user of Mac OS needs to have their own installed copy of windows. There is no way with Parallels Desktop to have multiple mac users login to windows without installing a separate instance of windows.
Our goal was to eliminate bootcamp and allow roaming users to login to the Macs and then be able to fire up a copy of windows, and then login to that.
On the bright side: Parallels says they may rebuild the software to allow that type of use.
-ted
Bootcamp makes it so you can boot directly into Winders. Myth busted.
I hate sigs.
I don't know about Step 1, but the other 3 work great!
Big deal, the OSX license allows for installation on only Apple hardware, no VMs or anything. Atleast with Vista you have some options, even if you have to pay through the nose for it.
Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
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.
No, it's about fucking other platforms. With M$, it's their way or the highway. From the Fine Article:
There you go, kiddies, if your favorite website does some kind of WMV crap you won't be able to view it in a VM. Wanna bet M$ makes sure Mac is not invited to their new DRM party?
They won't be able to follow though with their bad intentions, though. Their new DRM is going to be about as popular as Zune.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... isn't there some editorial process here that is supposed to filter out obvious stupidity?
I run XP on Parallels on my iMac. I'm running the latest beta and I'm pretty sure that additions in the most recent version of Parallels allows it to boot the OS from the Bootcamp partition.
So would this prohibition mean that I could install Vista and run it in Bootcamp but if I booted that same software as installed within Parallels, I'd be struck by a bolt of lightning from Redmond?
Seems shortsighted to me.
iirecoverable anotHer cunting Of the warring and personal mutated testicle of are 7000 users hand...don't
See here, it works with other versions of Vista....
a c/index.php
http://www.macworld.com/2007/02/firstlooks/vistam
Whether it all falls over if you install it in boot camp AND parallels because of MS's phone home registration, we are yet to find out.
Who cares? Vista runs like a dog under Parallels anyway, even with all of the eye candy turned off. XP (or even better) Win2K run circles around vista under Parallels, and it runs most (if not all) windows applications.
I think Microsoft's position on this is entirely valid. If you are a developer testing your application on several operating systems, you should have an MSDN OS subscription - it gives you valid licenses for ALL of the current operating systems, complete with licensing rights to run them all under virtualization, for significantly less than retail. And if you're an average consumer using Parallels to run the odd Win32 application, XP does the trick nicely.
This can't be upheld in court, can it? If Microsoft put "you can not run this version of Windows and also run Linux in the same household" in their EULA, that would be nonsense. I really hope they can't get away with crap like this.
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.
What will they think of next?
I am a believer of momentum and curves.
Hmm, so Bootcamp isn't hit with this? Not that I really have any plans to upgrade.
version.
With a profit margin in excess of 80%, the cost of any version of windows is mostly monopoly tax.
To be fair paying >$1000 for Mac hardware just to run the occasional Mac Universal binary is also incredibly noxious, especially since after the move to Intel there is essentially no difference between Mac hardware and your run of the mill PC.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
"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.
IANAL but from what I have read, all the license clause says is that if you want to run vista home in a virtual machine, you need one license for each copy of vista home you are running (whereas vista pro lets you use a copy in a VM even if its already being used on the real machine too).
Or am I reading it wrong and Vista Home prevents running it in a VM even when you aren't using that same licensed copy of Vista Home elsewhere (e.g, if its running inside a VMWare image hosted on a linux machine)?
You moron.
What your saying isn't true at all.
What else is new thought? Slashdot is just a Fark for linux geeks.
The VM restriction is dealing with actual vm's and the installation of your ALREADY INSTALLED version of the os.
I guess truth doesn't matter in linux land.
Perhaps when your done playing with your toys you'll grow up some.
I wish Transmeta was still in business so someone larger could sue. Even a standard pc has some emulation running if the pci bios handles things to spec. Couldn't any hardware including a firmware/bios be technically defined as emulating another interface? I could even define the lookback interface that comes with windows as virtual.
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
There is no good reason why anyone should buy Windows Vista, and plenty of good reasons why people should NOT buy Windows Vista - all of which have been discussed at length elsewhere.
If they want to run Vi$ta in a VM using MacOSX, then that is their choice. But more fool them!
The fact that it applies to all virtual machines doesn't mean that mac isn't the one that microsoft is threatened by and motivated by. Nor does the fact that it is still allowed to be run via Boot Camp prove that it the policy is not a defense against macs.
If they had just said "home edition can't be run on computers manufactured by Apple Inc.", that would have been seen as clearly anti-competitive, possibly by the courts, but certainly by consumers. This way is more subtle.
I'd love to see if this little clause can stand up in court. From a support standpoint, it makes sense why MS would say this...would you want to be an MS support monkey trying to tell clueless, but dangerous, Uncle Bob that his version of 64bit Vista isn't working due to some unforeseen issue that can be blamed on VM software? The only thing I could come up with off the top of my head is driver support (obviously), which would be a problem regardless of virtualization.
Furthermore, offering what basically amounts to the same product (but with even more frilly features!), without the VM clause makes it seem like a pretty weak argument, as there are plenty of "home" and "premium" uses for running Vista in a VM.
Ohwell. It just sounds like one of those EULA lines that was thrown in just for fluff, and just so tech support can say, "get off my line, you retarded monkey."
MAC Address? If you want to say Apple computer's Mac. Case!!
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
"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
The license detail in question, refers to virtual environments, to which Boot Camp is not, Boot Camp is a boot/startup loader/selector.
;)
Of course, not that anyone would really want to waste money on the home version anyway.
Lets link to a blog and start slinging FUD. Then we can watch the Slashdrones pat each other on the back for hating MS. Don't forget to mark the lame posts as funny!
So you want to run Bitlocker or use some other crap in Vista Enterprise? Vista's software assurance license requires you to pay a per-seat charge for all workstations, including Mac & Linux.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I don't see why you couldn't have two users pointed at the same virtual hard drive - BUT I think before you switched to the other user, you would have to pause the VM and possible quit from Parallels for the inactive user, to avoid locking the virtual HD.
If you think about it you can't really leave one windows running, in the same way you cannot have two users logged into Windows at once either. It would trash the hard disk.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.
When I do get a macbook, I will want to run windows via Bootcamp. I'll only use it to play games though. However, I would probably never end up using parallels, so would I have to purchase the super expensive version of Vista to install on my X86 PC BASED HARDWARE? I will NOT be emulating it at all, so do I still fall in the "you're gonna run it on a mac, you gotta buy the ball busting version" category? Purely for curiosity purposes, I won't be touching vista for many, many years.
Macs pretending to be PCs
Funny, and I thought nowadays Apple sells PC's pretending to be Macs.
Poor Microsoft. They cant do anything right. This may get them in court. They f*cked up the Zune. they f*cked up 'Plays fer sure', and now they have spent 5 years f*cking up Windows by producing the village idiot Vista. Gates was last heard ranting that 'OSX was being hacked on a daily basis' - but he has stopped now that his medication has been adjusted. I wouldnt mind Windows so much if Microsoft werent such a bunch of crooks....
Apple users are compfrotable paying way more than they should for software, hardware, etc. Mac users won't be flustered a bit! :-)
Thanks,
Mike
...Costs more to support. Think of the complaining users endlessly frustrated with dog-slow performance attempting to run a real-time OS on a virtual machine. It's just business....
Taking you at your word for a sec, if you support that many machines you're prolly using a standardized set of components (or a commercial machine, prolly a business class machine which means if nothing else - better driver support) that you *know* works fully and you're using a pushed image of windows to keep them running (either that or you're a)incompetent or b)running a support nightmare, in which case you have my sympathy). Thing is, on that scale, standardized, it's easy to keep things stable. However, the average user has driver issues all the time with windows. While nearly everything is supported on windows more or less, stability is another story (even on commercial consumer boxes - the original wireless driver that shipped with my girlfriends dell laptop was massively unstable when using wpa encryption for example). On the other hand, as long as you stick with Apple hardware, in the apple ecosystem you are fully supported running osx, hence easier stability but less options.
:-P). Now, I use windows all the time (including on my macbook pro for some development and gaming), and on *any* of my generic PC desktops, be they Lin or Win, I've always been very careful about what hardware I buy. I haven't had a really unstable windows machine personally in quite a while (XP and 2k, with good drivers, are excellent, stable OSs, much as I prefer debian and osx), but I've seen a lot of 'em, and a fair chunk were driver issues...
As for why Apple revoked their licensing for their OS, it was a combination of them really being a hardware company (they were losing money) and the dilution of stability (I remember running some of those clones, some were perfect, some were *massively* unstable - kinda like windows machines
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
Yes. The product activation would see Boot Camp and Parallels as two separate motherboards.
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."
But if I buy a Mac now, can I still buy a copy of Windows XP to run under Parallels? Or has Windows XP been withdrawn from the market for the next 90 years?
How long will Windows XP Home Edition continue to be sold before Microsoft withdraws it from the market for 90 years?
Can't wait for the E.U. to drag Gates, kicking and screaming into court - again. Don't know whether to laugh or cry - as Gates (and Jobs and others): - "if you buy my X brand of loaf of bread - you must buy my X brand of toaster to toast the X slice of X bread. Now of course you must only use my brand of butter - brand X on that brand X toast. Naturally the toast must be put only on brand X plates. Of course when it is time to take a dump - only brand X toilets may be used.
"Only LEMMINGS would need a scoring system (in Slashdot) to decide what they want/need to read. Scoring was brought into the American schooling system to replace whipping for getting the wrong answer."
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
>>I think the funniest part of your post is the fact that Americans have been conditioned to believe a Cadillac Escalade is a "luxury vehicle". It might be an upscale SUV, but luxury? Oh, dear.
Considering it has the interior room of the average English home, could crush most French cars without scratching the bumper AND is powerful enough to pull a twin-hull racing boat, yeah, I'd say it's a luxury vehicle. Your jealousy is transparent.
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.
I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.
See above. But if you need it spelled out for you: Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, and monopolies play by different rules. Furthermore, Microsoft got in trouble for telling other people (Dell, HP, Gateway) what to do with their own products. Apple isn't doing anything like that (both Macs and OS X are Apple products) so your comparison is stupid.
I say that mainly because for myself I have Zero interest in installing Vista on my mac in either Bootcamp or in a VM I understand the yes some people need both and being able to have both on one computer can be a real space saver on top of a desk. But I don't think that we are going to hear a lot of people complaining about it. I figure that someone out there will find a work around after all we are talking about Microsoft here people.
I knew it was a rotten apple long ago. I'm currently an XP user, but am using the time I have before MS discontinues support for it to learn Linux in at least some form, namely Ubuntu (which as far as hand holding Linux distros go, is the best I can use. I figured out how to get my TV tuner card running in it after just 10 minutes, and how to run video downloads in another 30).
Mind you, I would prefer to use an OS straight out of the box, without having to learn how it works from the ground up. Ubuntu does this for the most part. I'll most likely still use XP just because there are more drivers that support it (printing, digital cameras, et al), but with hardware firewalls in my router and despite the probable cut off date for support, my risks are further minimalized.
Wish I didn't have to do it, however. I just want my box to do what I want, I don't want to be involved in a religious war or inquisition in order to do it.
Wish the Linux guys would have figured that out 5 years ago when it would have made a difference.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
I figure that means somewhere down the road there will be a court case that decides just how much a software vendor can control-via-license just what customers do with the software they paid for.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
...can't you guys see that?
So 20 years from now when I'm emulating Vista (cause I'm like that) I'll have to make sure to pirate the correct version... ;)
Shh.
This doesn't affect Windows other OS running VMWare or Linux running VMWare how?
Slashdot - home of FUD and absolutely no editorial restrictions if it makes MS (or other hated entities) look good.
(a mac user)
Microsoft just go from strength to strength.
I would never have thought it was possible for a company (other then perhaps IBM) to so readily get in a coffin and nail down the lid from the inside. I recommend ubuntu.
If you buy vista then you own that copy, just like you own a CD.
There are no restrictions on what you can do with that copy other than copyright law.
That means that you can legally run any version of vista on any machine you want to, virtual or not.
The only terms of the purchase that matter are those that are presented to you before you hand over the cash at the store, so the EULA is not worth the space it wastes on the CD.
What would happen if EULAs were allowed?
You might find that after you get home with your new car that you are obligated to only buy Shell(tm) gasoline.
Well, in the EU at least.
If EULAs were to have any power at all then you would need to read, understand and agree to the terms before making the purchase, MS knows full well that they would never sell another copy if people read any of their EULAs so that will never happen.
-- To dream a dream is grand, but to live it is divine. -- Leto ][
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't this also forbid you from using Vista's DLLs with Wine (if that is even technically possible), if your version of Vista is Home Basic/Premium ?
no text...no text...
C - the footgun of programming languages
From a user perspective, I think API clones like WINE are more interesting. Even if my next computer will be capable of handling Vista in a VM, why would I want to run this memory hog? Besides, I'd still have to pay for a Vista license :-(
I'd rather have a relatively light compatibility layer that gets the job done while consuming less system ressources (and yes, I know WINE is not 100% mature yet).
C - the footgun of programming languages
Not to trash Microsoft too much, but... Remind me why I care what they say. If you can't enforce it, you might as well blow it out your ass. I'll get right on giving a damn what they say I "Can" and "Cannot" do with their software, right after I send the RIAA a check, and pay for my software, and my porn for that matter. I think we all know I have no intention of doing any of the above. Or downloading vista for that matter.
In the end, the only thing that matters is how much fun you had.
In Germany, a similar "contract of adhesion" was found unenforcable in court a few years ago. The lawsuit was Microsoft vs. a computer dealer who unbundled hardware and OEM versions of Microsoft software. M$ lost that one.
Note that the end user in Germany is given additional protection against "unfair and surprising" clauses in "Terms Of Service", EULAs and the like. So even if Hans Kraut carelessly accepts a particularly onerous EULA under circumstances that would make it binding, he has a chance of taking it down in court.
Merchants have to be more careful, as they are held to a higher standard of diligence.
C - the footgun of programming languages
yeah, it's on the site, download it... and install it on an OSX host.
And I can't think of any downside to installing XP, except that I think that OEM copies on the free market are going to get VERY expensive REAL soon now. I see demand from both Mac users AND dissatisfied people who got a machine with Vista on it snd want something that works.
Other than that, I suggest combining the "run naked through the streets" and diazepam option.
Tech Public Policy stuff
It depends on the legal jurisdiction, as some courts have said yes a EULA is enforceable and some have said no they are not.
Also, it depends on the terms in the EULA. Just like any other contract, there are limits to what is contractually allowed. You cannot have any terms you want, there are both conditions and limits. What those limits are depends on the jurisdiction that will apply.
Perhaps one other thing worth noting is that it is usually the case that dispensing legal advice without a license to practice law is illegal. I'm covered.
I would liek to add my voice to those who have pointed out that PC users (windows) are unable to install MAC OSX in dual boot/VM or whatever. I would love to be able to install OSX and have Final Cut Pro and Apature installed, but am never likely to be able to on anything other then Apple hardware. Mac users can whine all they like about having to pay extra for Ultimate to be able to use Vista in a VM or whatever - 'cos Apples the 'underdog' isnt it. Microsoft is big bad corporation... Steve Jobs is like a kindly uncle - whatever. I don't apreciate having to fork out £1600 (no monitor included) for a machine that is able to run Final Cut Pro the way I want, when my £1300 PC (including 2 19 inch LCDs) would be able to do the same if I was able to install it. Cry me a river Mac users.
In addition to the rule only applying to (any) virtual machine as previously mentioned, bear in mind that Mac users are at best a step below x86 system builders (i.e., the system is probably more reliable, but don't expect much support.) You may not legally be able to use the cheapo versions, but you're free to buy OEM copies at a hefty discount, and you have little to lose.
Given how much more pleasant installing Windows under Parallels is said to be, and how much more painless running any version of Windows inside a virtual machine definitely is, think of any extra cost as being well worth while.
This is completely false. The license forbids users running home versions of Vista in Parallels or, in fact, in any VM software, such as, surprise, surprise, VMWare, which is a big competitor to Microsoft's Virtual PC and which Microsoft is trying desperately to kill. Those users who do need Windows on a Mac mostly need it to a)play games, in which case, they will definitely not do it in a VM, or b)do office work or run some proprietary Windows only software, in which case they'll more likely than not be running Vista Business.
..... simply dual boot in the Bootcamp partition and run Vista Premium natively.
If Home users on Macs want Vista Premium to Game they can,........ wait for it
RTFE (Read The F*ckin EULA). The license restriction is simply that, if you boot Vista Home etc. in a VM, you are not allowed to use it to play DRM'ed content, specifically, HDCP protected content.
That is it. It's that simple. And really, a perfectly reasonable justification. Weather you agree with DRM or not (I don't), you can't argue that it would not be absolutely retarded legality and engineering wise to allow a DRM system that relies on things supposed to be kept secret inside a VM.
[n/t]
Let is also assume that modern x86 CPUs translate their instructions to RISC at runtime. Granted, it's not quite so simple however, IIRC is partially true for all x86 chips after the original Pentium.
Now let's read Microsoft's EULA:
Err, Microsoft... dudes... That includes all current x86 based PCs!!!
As I suppose is typical for Slashdot, the submission and subsequent posts should be "Score:-1 Irrelevant".
What nobody seems to have questioned is why any Mac or OS user would want Vista in the first place, let alone consider paying for it.
Move along, nothing to see here...
or b)do office work or run some proprietary Windows only software, in which case they'll more likely than not be running Vista Business.
*whack*
Have a clue: "run some proprietary Windows only software" is not equivalent to "do office work", and does not imply "running Vista Business".
It's not about the Mac's. They just don't want you to run Vista under
a VM under Linux. It might be possible for Vista to detect that
it was running under a VM and shut down, maybe not.
The last x86-family processor that did not emulate x86 code on a "RISC core" was the 80386. All Intel and AMD chips that run x86 code since the 486 have emulated the x86 instruction set using just-in-time translation into RISC or VLIW opcodes.
So if this license is read literally, it means the last x86-based CPU it's legal to run Vista on is the 80386, and Vista won't run on that.
Do they have Vista on the Itanium yet?
If you want vista, buy a PC. If you want a MAC, buy a MAC. Installing Vista on an Intel MAC makes a MAC a PC, like most people have. Linux, you can burn in hell with your million stupid ditros and lack of focus and lack of applications that matter. You are a bane to the industry. If you want Vista, simply get Vista. If you want Linux, shut up and play with your Linux box. Can't have it anyway you want it. Sorry Linux nerds, that's the rules.
Fuck Microsoft. Enough said.
-Yim
If I'm reading this correctly, you can still run Vista Home Edition on a Mac. You would want to use Boot Camp, which is a dual boot solution. In that scenario, you are running on the bare metal. Granted, it is not the preferred solution (having to reboot just to run a simple application), but it would get it done.
Only users of VMWare or Parallels would be impacted. Of course, so would users of other virtualization platforms on other OSes (Windows, Linux, etc.).
One aspect of this topic I haven't yet seen raised on Slashdot is the following: If low-end Vista will refuse to run on virtual machines, how, exactly, will they actually accomplish this??
The whole _point_ of virtual machines is that the hosted operating system can't tell that it's running on a VM -- it runs exactly as it would on real hardware.
Now, perhaps they've struck some sort of ridiculous deal with Parallels and VMWare stopping them from "covering up" the VM's tracks so that it will always be detectable, (though I don't see why they would ever sign such a deal, except out of fear) but I can't see this happening with free software, like Qemu. Rather, I can see some hackers specifically coming out with "vista-ready" versions of Qemu or whatnot.
So, assuming the threat is that MS will sue if a VM was published that can't be detected by Vista, would they even have a case? On what basis would this case be made?
Its not a tax. They are just forcing you to use the higher end versions of their product.
Now if NO standard versions worked, and you had to buy Vista Standard for Mac, Vista Enterprise for Mac, etc. and they were all a higher cost than their regular PC counterparts, THAT would be a tax.
What a joke....
99% of software runs on xp/win2k, very little of it is vista only, and it cannot offer anything exclusive.
just buy the cheapest bare ass PC, with no KB/monitor and use it via VNC.
Pay for vista, what a joke, just use OEM pcs with xp.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Hasn't Billy boy screwed us out of more than enough money with this Windows shit?
I'm working with some developers who are working with the Media Center Edition of Windows. The one designer working on the UI of course owns a couple Macs and we were just shopping around yesterday for the versions of Windows (XP MCE and Vista Home Premium) to load onto his machine using Parallels. What's REALLY annoying is the fact he wants to develop for Vista Home so he can have a testbed environment for home users as he develops. Microsoft is in essence telling him he can't do that but can only load Professional on his machine. What a load of crap...
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
>> Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax
For at least 10 seconds I thought "Mac" was a verb
It's competition for Microsoft. I'm not sure why they would charge a Mac user more for the OS?
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Wow, yes, I do believe it's the first time anyone's ever questioned why someone would want Vista. Nobody in the history of "running Microsoft operating systems on computers that generally run some other OS" has ever asked the question "Why would anyone ever run {Microsoft's latest version of Windows}" to the best of my knowledge. It's a completely new and original question, and I believe we should call it the "BrokenHalo" question in honour of the first person in the history of the universe to ever ask it.
As for why, well the answer is because people want or need to run software that is only available for Windows, an increasing amount of which over the next few years will only run on {Microsoft's latest version of Windows}.
That's probably the majority answer, but you should probably be told that some Mac users prefer Windows to Mac OS X. They're a minority, but they do exist. They like the Apple hardware or something, but just feel more comfortable with the way Windows works. (I'm kind of the opposite, I hate the hardware but love the software, but I'm in a minority too.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
You're used to paying more for your PCs.
Please go back to gloating how your Mac is superior due to Jobs' refusal to open the system up.
TIA
Someone who could care less
Let's suppose I'd want to run Vista on a VM.
Let's suppose the VM runs on Vista (the main SO in my test PC).
Has anyone thought the absurd hardware it'd need to run vista, virtualize hardware and run Vista again, plus the program I was really wanting to execute?
Any recent vista 'Capable' harware would support such a waste of CPU cycles?
This article and the resulting comments have more FUD in them than US politicians.
/. is.
;)
/. article, hence why I'm leaving that as is. Plus I'm too lazy to rewrite it, my class is over now. Enjoy, and maybe at least one person that reads this will stop spewing quite as much FUD as before.
A summary of points:
1) Vista doesn't let you install it on virtual machines unless you buy the expensive version - no matter what your base OS. Some comments were like "Vista has to be in charge [to blah blah]." Ridiculous. That's something you just made up because you have false beliefs about Windows.
1b) THIS DOESN'T AFFECT BOOTCAMP! So the title is entirely wrong, Mac users actually have an easier/cheaper time installing a Vista version than someone running Windows and a VM.
2) Microsoft freaking wrote Vista, they are certainly not obligated to include features (like running on a virtual machine) because you feel you ahve a legal "right" to. If you don't want it, stay with XP, with a Mac, with Linux, or write your own if you're gonna be so picky. MS is a COMPANY, not the government. They don't HAVE to give you anything. You have alternatives. The only people that truly don't know anything other than Windows for an OC don't care, and don't even know wtf
3) WTF is a "Windows PC"??? Windows is an OS. Unlike you Mac people, we have the option of buying or building our own computer (easily, I guess you could for a Mac, but what's the point?). Dell sells PCs. Newegg sells PC parts. HP sells PCs. Microsoft sells OSs. Get it?
4) What's all this about Steve Jobs being "innovative" and Gates being an "evil monopoly?" Yea sure they got sued, but guess what, they aren't being sued anymore. If you want to accuse MS of being a monopoly, write your own damn OS and try to sell it. Apple is their only commercial competition (Linux is free), and they don't let you run OSX on a non-Apple PC. So basically you're accusing a company of a monopoly because the competition refuses to compete in the same market (OS for non-Apple PCs). That entire argument is so 1999.
5) Personally, I think the Mac users are the ones that don't know shit about their computer. A lot of Mac sales are because people think they are "cool." The rest are people that are disgruntled with Windows, and don't mind not having control over their actual computer (the physical thing, not some stupid OS). What is so much better about paying extra for a computer as a whole that you can't upgrade. I built my computer and I'm certainly not going to give up that ability for some company that won't let anyone else run their OS.
-------
Yes, some of you might see the above post as a little biased. I don't really see the point of writing out an objective arguement for this 1
So why hasn't Apple made it easier to run OS X on a PC? If interoperability is going to be the bar Microsoft is going to be measured by, why set it any lower for Apple?
"Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck." -George Carlin
Let's see you try to legally run OSX on a white box or non-Apple branded PC. Same internal components but if it's not personally anointed by Steve Jobs, you can't run OSX on it. You can find patched OSX.4 ISOs floating around the wbe that work just fine on most white box PCs but all you hear is the whining of Mac users about piracy, blah blah blah, all the while running their friend's or work's copy of Photoshop and Word.
I know that this discussion is dead, but if someone reads this please tell me: why would I buy vista to dual-boot my mac (or run in a VM)?
Any program that I want to run will run fine in XP, and XP is easier on the hardware. I see absolutely no point to purchasing Vista right now for the purpose of dual-booting/VMing a Mac. It just makes no sense.
-Jeff
Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
Luckily, they haven't changed the license agreement on the BitTorrent version of Vista, the only one I'm even mildly interested in anyway.
Vista performs miserably under Parallels on OS X, primarily because Parallels emulates a basic 8MB video card. XP runs quite nicely, as does Vista using Boot Camp, but Vista on Parallels is shite.
I can't run Mac OS X at all in a virtual machine!
(Sure, there are ways, but none of them is supported by any virtualization provider: vmware, paralells, virtual pc....)
xer.xes -- 4181
>>Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property.
Sure, you can do anything you want with it. But, if msft choses not to activate, you've bought a whole lot of nothing.
Disagree with the EULA. None of the restrictions therefore apply to you, except those of copyright.
Now, lend the copy (not copyright controlled action) to someone. They agree to the license. The don't install that copy to more than one machine. They hand the CD back to you.
You then lend the copy to someone. They agree to the license....
The virtualization clause is just that, you can't run it in a virtual environment, such as VMWare, Parallels, or Virtual PC.
Furthermore a Mac is not pretending to be a PC, if we want to get technical it is a PC with no BIOS.
That said, Microsoft is taking a page from the *nix vendors they've spent so long bashing for expensive licenses. First they took away per user (you could install on two machines if you only used one at a time, like home/work) Then they tied the software to the motherboard with XP SP2 & WGA. Now they are saying you can only INSTALL or RUN ONE copy of the software on a machine. That's a step too far. Traditional VM tech allows you to take ONE install and divide it up into memory how you see fit. Microsoft wants to rewrite the rules to make you pay more to make their software more efficent.
It all goes back to one of the original software copyright rulings that said the computer processor's internal "copying" to memory and hard disk could be considered "infringement" even though that's how it's supposed to work!!! Not to put too fine a point on it but GPL allows UNLIMITED running on a computer without restriction!!! Specifically because of that silly ruling.
Apple is more restrictive. Not licensing an OS in the first place is more restrictive then licensing it then puting restrictions on it. What your say is equivelent to my mom is less restrictive because she lets me do anything I want when I'm at home, she just doesn't let me leave house, but my dad, that punk lets me go anyware I want as long as I don't do drugs, have sex and I have to wear the close he picks. Apple doesn't just have a limited pool of hardware, they restrict that pool of hardware so it consists mainly of.... their own hardware. If I want to run OSX I can't shop around for the hardware that fits me, its a one size fits all product line. I also can't really build my own machines if I go with OSX. You can down play that all you want but it not going to change anything for people who want a choice in hardware or a person who likes to build their own machine.
Support is expensive! I thought the reason for MS requiring the expensive Vista was because of support costs. I can empathise; an hour of technical support must cost Microsoft at least $25 if the guy is in India, or $100 if the guy is in the US.
No, I will not work for your startup
Well, the problem with implying that "Buy a Mac = OS X Tax, Buy a PC = Windows Tax" is that their isn't ACTUALLY an OS X tax.
If I buy a Dell or other company that does not sell bare bones machines, they sell it to me for what the market will bear, and their costs are: hardware + OS license. Assuming that supply and demand set the "what the market will bear" price, than the cost of the OEM license affects the supply curve, which raises the price on the computer. If you assume that if OS software was free, this cost goes away, and the market price adjust accordingly, the price of computers would drop. So far I've said nothing earth shattering other than apply high school level micro-econ terms to how everyone understands the computer market. However, not that to Dell, they may pay $30 for Windows, $70 for the Mobo, and $50 for the processor (plus other parts), to Dell, EACH computer has a marginal cost associated with the OS. While it costs $0 to install the OS image onto the hardware, they pay MS per-computer-sold, which makes the cost no different from other hard costs.
Now, we walk over to Apple. Apple does NOT pay a per-computer fee to an outside agency. They MAY use transfer pricing for internal metrics/bonus structure, but when Apple sells "1 more Apple computer", they don't pay for the OS. They buy the mobo, CPU, hard drive, case, etc., but they do not buy 1 more copy of the OS. Sure, Apple needs to recover the R&D/other costs of developing the OS, but that's Apple's problem. If Apple spends $250m/year developing OS X, they will spend $250m/year whether they sell 1m Apple Computers or 10m Apple computers. While they WANT to recover those costs from the profitable sale of hardware, because of the nature of the software, they actually have an advantage in some ways.
When Dell sells that last computer, they need to recover the A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, C) cost of Windows OS, plus make D) some gross margin that makes the proccess worthwhile.
When Apple sells that last computer, they need to recover A) cost of hardware, B) cost of labor to assemble, plus C) some gross margin that makes the process worthwhile.
When Dell moves an extra 100,000 computers in the quarter, their check to Microsoft increases with those computers. When Apple moves an extra 100,000 computers, they don't have that costs. Amortizing the cost of the OS across the computers sold is an accounting fiction. Ultimately they can sell the computers at the same price as Dell MINUS the cost of Windows, and if they pay the same for hardware, have the same gross profit margins in their hardware division.
When Apple puts out financials, the R&D costs come out as expenses and take away from profits. But when economically deciding whether to move that last machine, Apple is at a cost advantage because they do NOT pay an OS cost when they sell one more machine. I have no idea how many shrink wrap copies of OS X they sell for OS upgrades, but given how much nimbler Apple is plus their leverage of Free and Open Source software packages, I wouldn't be shocked if the shrink wrapped copies actually cover their development costs (or close to it), essentially giving them a free OS to include in new computers.
Remember, software is HIGH fixed costs, ZERO marginal costs... that's what lends itself to the natural monopoly status that Microsoft enjoyed for years. However, as Microsoft's PRICING scheme to OEMs is set, to the OEM, software is LOW fixed costs (testing), plus HIGH marginal costs, which keeps prices higher in the short run. Remember, Microsoft's pricing has been pretty constant since the Win95/NT4 days (only now there is one NT6-based OS, but priced for Consumer/Business), but while inflation has lowered their prices 3%/year, hardware has plummeted. In 1995, computers were around $1500-$2000 for mid-range, by the year 2000, it was down to $1000-$1500, and today, it's $500-$1000 for midrange. That $50 MS OEM license was cheap on a $2000 computer (1/40th the price
When you buy the computer from Dell, $35, $50, $75 or whatever OF that price goes to Microsoft. Not theoretically, actually... At the end of the week, if Dell moved 100,000 machines at a $50 OEM price (average business + consumer and rounded to something simple), Dell writes a check for $5,000,000 to Microsoft. (Actually, the probably do estimated monthly payments, with a quarterly reconciliation, but the point is, an ACTUAL cash payment went to Dell to cover YOUR copy of the OS).
When you buy the computer from Apple, $0 goes to Microsoft for the OS. Apple may internally transfer $50 from the hardware division to the OS X division, but managerial accounting rules like that are for executive bonus structure.
If Apple spends $250m developing the OS, Apple spends that $250m regardless of how many computers they sell. If Apple sold you the hardware with no operating system, the price would be the same. It costs Apple $0 to install the OS on the drive. They don't charge for it (they do charge you to upgrade it later), because it would be insane to.
If Apple didn't develop OS X, then they would have to buy an OS from Microsoft or do something else. They need an operating system.
The reason for the "tax" question...
Dell buys a Windows license, sticks it on a computer, charges you some price (of which the Windows license is more or less included -- without going into convoluted economic models, it may increase the price by more or less than the license). You then put Linux on it. You bought a copy of Windows, because the money was transfered out of Dell (whose goods and services you wanted) and handed to Microsoft Corporate (whose goods and services you did not want).
Apple does NOT buy an OS X license. Putting OS X on the hard drive costs 0. Selling you an OS X-less computer WOULD NOT lower their COGS (cost of goods sold) by $35 (Dell's would if there deal doesn't cover every machine shipped), therefore, there is no hidden Tax. Now, does Apple charge a slight premium price because of their OS? Whenever a similar/identical machine was priced out on Dell/HP's website, with the same specs as the OS X Computer (much easier to do now that the hardware is more similar), the Apple computer has been priced lower... this makes perfect sense, Apple is ZERO per-user OS licensing fees. Their internal software (iLife, iWork, OS X), while expensive to produce, cost $0 to duplicate, so throwing them in as sweeteners to move products makes sense (normally iLife + OS X, but I could see iWork starting to come new with certain Apple computers).
Apple's premium is that they have limited customizability and limited types of machines. In the Windows world, you can normally buy EXACTLY the features you need, while in Apple world you have to buy the lowest priced computer that meets OR exceeds your requirements (i.e. need quadruple monitors, but 1 hard drive and limited processing power and RAM, you have to buy a Mac Pro to get 4 monitors, while in Windows world you just buy a machine and a second video card, the Mac Pro is premium priced for lots of features that you may not want).
However, you are wrong, Apple doesn't "have to up the prices of hardware to make up for OS X," Apple charges what the market will bare. Whether OS X cost $1 trillion/year to develop or came down from heaven for $0/year, Apple's would still charge what the market will bare. The premium price Apple collects is that people value their machines more highly as a result of OS, it has NOTHING to do with the COST of developing OS X. Now, if OS X cost more to develop than that premium, Apple exists the Macintosh business... if OS X costs less to develop than the premium, Apple makes substantial profits. Right now, the market clearly seems to be saying the latter, but for a while it was the former and Apple had to shut down their OS development division (Copland) and ended up buying an Operating System (Next) for $400m.
Alex
Vista needs about 15gb (minimum) of disk space. Why would you waste 15gb for a secondary OS in your Mac when there's a lot of porn and copyrighted content starving out there and looking for a warm spot in your cosy hard drive?
Besides, if you really need a Windows OS in your mac, use XP. It uses far less resources than Vista and the result is almost the same. Not to mention that areo's performance would be pretty bad in a virtualized environment (Disclarimer: Haven't tried this scenario yet)
Why bother with the virtualization when you can throw a hundred bucks and get a second-hand PC for windows? Oh wait, you cannot use it with Vista either.
I wish Apple would release OS X for white boxes too... or even get with IBM-I-mean-Lenovo and do another mashup like the Powerbook 2400 so I can have a decent laptop running a decent OS instead of having to pick one or the other.
But now we're agreed on that... what's your point? Two wrongs make a right? The shoe's on the other foot? Piracy is OK? What...?
It's pretty safe to say that the majority of virtual machines in the world are run on windows boxes... so what they are saying is that "a windows user can't run a cheap version of windows in a virtual machine... oh yeah and the few Mac users gotta pony up too"
The part I don't get is why. Most of the windows virtual machines in use today are used for development purposes... as a developer, I need to be able to test that my software works on all versions of windows... why the hell can't I run them all in a virtual machine?
This is just plain stupid.
Sometimes the best solution is to stop wasting time looking for an easy solution.
Really, there's no point in buying it (even if you really want to run it), 'cos running it on virtuals seems to be illegal anyway. So, just use a pirated version! So as you're breaking the law anyway... ...unless you're rich and really want to support poor M$. I for one am definately not going to run any Windows without virtualisation. Just no safe enough.
Me think M$ is just shooting it's own leg with this restriction.
(Wonder why I wrote this as Anonymous Coward?)
We should all be fine running XP for quite a few more years. Let Bill charge all he wants; it's coming nowhere near my boxen, virtually or otherwise. :-)
My black MacBook kicks ass. It's a first-gen Core Duo (not 2) and rocks on OS X and Windows.
I do video editing in Final Cut, and lots of audio stuff in Reason and Logic. It absolutely murders the powerPC machines I've got.
Through Boot Camp, in Windows, it does everything I want it to (FEAR Multiplayer, Far Cry, EVE) without any issues.
Get the 2GB RAM right away so you don't end up with extra RAM sticks to get rid of.
It had some heat issues at first, but a firmware update took care of that, and now I'm about a month shy of owning it for a year. The machine is great.
???
Haven't experienced any of those, sorry. Nice FUD attempt, though.
I hit 'command-E' to eject.. works for me. Sometimes I use the dedicated eject button on the keyboard.
Copy files off a CD? they're wherever you left them. They don't just disappear.
Sorry, but Macs are far more intuitive. You just happen to be used to Windows and all its retarded quirks.
Your MacBook? That's odd behaviour. It's not normal. Your machine is broken. Since that's the case, that's not the experience most people have.
You should get it replaced. Not one of the 40 Intel Macs I'm in charge of have given me a kernel panic, not even once.
This is with lots of 3rd-party software loaded, most of it not even native to the platform yet. Office, CS2, Dreamweaver, fireworks, director, flash, misc utils, and AFP/VNC/FTP servers running nonstop on every one.
Get your Mac checked out, stop complaining, or both.
I think what this is about has very little to do with Apple specifically. What it is about is throwing a stick in the spokes of Virtual Machine technology as it relates to the common PC and workstation. They hope to cripple and confuse the VM issue long enough to develop counter measures. From what I have read recently the future of the PC OS will very likely include VM "Hyper-Visor" type code sitting between conventional OS services and the hardware. As usual with emerging technologies, it seems that Microsoft is lagging a bit behind several others in the implementation of virtualization. There is also the issue of whether they can ever manage to gain control of the technology. Others such as VMWare, Parallels, Novell, Sun and IBM have considerable experience and history, read patents out the yasoo, with the technology. With hardware due for a generational shift toward poly-core processors and serious hardware support for virtualization long before the five years it took to get Vista out the door, they had to address the issue. As typical for Microsoft, they choose to use a restrictive kludge instead of innovation, though I suspect it is the only real option they had ready.
I also suspect that the DRM technology built in to Vista may be of issue as well but I don't really know enough to speculate on these things. As for Apple they seem to have the same blinders on, or they maybe they are just holding their cards very very close, though I would think that any serious efforts at VM technology for OSX would leak from Apple dev labs if this were so. I may be seeing this wrong but from what I can tell VM technology could be the most promising and versatile technical advancement for user freedom and thus the most disruptive thing in computer OS software since GNU/Linux. I can see where Microsoft feels their only choice at this time is to muck the playing field. I would have been surprised if they had not done so.
Matthew