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

Summary incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[PygmySurfer]

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

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!

Re:Summary incorrect.

[Yvan256]

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

You must be new here.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[umbrellasd]

Agreed. This clause refers to running Vista in VMs a la VMWare. The concern is that they want you to buy 3 copies of Vista instead of cloning three VMWare images and running 3 machines on one fat piece of hardware. Bootcamp isn't even virtualization as what it does is make it easier to grab the appropriate Windows drivers (for Mac hardware and load them during the install process. Installing Vista on a Mac is the same as installing on any other supported hardware (Intel Core duo + ATI video doe my iMac); it's the OS run directly on your hardware with appropriate drivers. The guy from Parallels is right about his comment because they _do_ virtualize the hardware and give you a VM, but thats not at all the same as the title claim which is "All Mac users pay a M$ tax to run Vista". No, they won't have to and that would be a stupid move for M$. They will be very happy to make their $199 or whatever it is if you are a Mac user and disable enough of your brain to think you might like to occasionally prefer Vista over MacOS.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[Angelwrath]

Sounds like someone from Digg came to Slashdot to post the article. This is precisely the kind of tabloid-esque, inaccurate title for an article that Digg is now plagued with.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[cdrudge]

Yeah. It's called the off road package. If you want a bare minimum vehicle, go with a stripped down Cavalier. If you want to upgrade to all sorts of luxury features, you are going to have to pay more to get a Cadillac.

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:Summary incorrect.

[zcat_NZ]

Yeah, but that's because it actually costs them more to fit them. The car doesn't come with those things fitted and then deliberately dissabled.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[mollymoo]

Do you care that you are wrong and have misread the EULA? It states that you cannot use the same license to run in a VM on the Licensed device. eg, you are not supposed to install home or basic on a physical machine and then use the same license/product key for the VM.

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?

Re:Summary incorrect.

[mfh]

You must be new here.

He missed it the other 21 times?

Re:Summary incorrect.

[MrAnnoyanceToYou]

No, the implication is that reporting something important fifty times with slightly differing results is the mean average as far as Slashdot is concerned.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[VertigoAce]

Additionally, the last time I checked the wording of the EULA could quite easily be interpreted to allow a Vista VM running under another OS (just not a re-use of your existing Vista license to run a VM under a "native" install).

I'd be curious to hear an official Microsoft response on this. My reading of it agrees with yours that it seems to be talking about the license not applying to a VM running on the licensed device.

Consider the home license: "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual ... hardware system." It looks to me like they don't want you to reuse the existing installation (and license) in a virtual system. I could probably argue either reading for the home license.

The Business/Ultimate license is what made me begin questioning the normal Slashdot interpretation: "You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual ... hardware system on the licensed device." Notice that this version says that the virtual hardware system is running on the licensed device. This implies that this instance of the EULA applies to the host system, but the guest system is allowed to use the licensed software.

IANAL, but my interpretation is that the intent of this clause is to allow the business versions of the client to run in a sandbox mode with multiple instances of the OS covered by a single instance of the license. I suspect that the next server OS utilizes virtual machines as a security feature and the Vista license includes this clause so developers can test a single user version on their workstations. Of course, I could be completely wrong, but if so, why the destinction between "licensed device" and "virtual hardware system" instead of indicating that the (un)licensed device is the virtual hardware system?

Re:Summary incorrect.

[mpe]

But then why don't they allow you legally to run ONE copy of Vista in a VM, if that's really their worry?

Assuming that EULAs actually have any legal basis in the first place. Even if that was the case the specific clause in question would have to have a legal basis. It isn't unknown for such documents to be stuffed full of questionable (even bogus) claims.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[ratboy666]

The license defines "licensed device" as "Before you use the software under a license, you must
assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device."
A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device." (quote from the license).

It is stated that the physical hardware is the "licensed device", so it is not possible to use these versions of Vista under a Virtual Machine (or emulation, eg. BOCHS).

Re:Summary incorrect.

[bheer]

> 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.

It's not just cars, *anything* can be sold by charging more for extra 'features'. That applies to salt and breakfast cereal to 747s. It's called product differentiation and it's pretty much Economics 101. How does Microsoft become 'monopolistic' by charging more for certain editions -- they're merely trying to maximize their revenue -- when every other company does the same? It's not like they're hiding the cheaper editions. Hell, given that most home users will buy Vista from their OEMs, they'll probably use Vista Home Premium quite contentedly anyway.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Incorrect.

1) The EULA terms apply to all VMs, not just Macs.

2) This anonymous comment found here says:

This does not limit your use of the software in a virtual environment. It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations. For instance, if you buy a new desktop with a copy of windows installed, you can't take that same license of Windows and install it in a virtual machine. This would be similar to not allowing you to install the same license on another machine. Ultimate edition opens up licensing and allows you to use the same license inside a virtual machine, even though the license is already installed on the physical machine.

Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

older news

[DaMattster]

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."

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?

[wass]

I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.

Inaccurate comparison, you're simplifying the situation (intentionally?)

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.

So, while you claim Apple is the restrictive party here, they're actually the more open party. Your complaint is only that Apple has a more limited pool of hardware to run OS X, however within that pool you can do whatever you want on those computers with your OS X. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a wider array of available hardware, but they only lets you run your licensed copy of Vista if they're the main player at the time, and won't let you run Vista within (ie, in a VM) to another OS unless you shell out significantly more cash.

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?

[MSFanBoi2]

yes they did. Care though, to harken back to the late 80's thru mid 90's when Apple licenced the OS to other manufacturers. Like PowerPC (I think that was their name, can't remember the name, I do remember the "Lets Kick Intel's Ass" adverts though) that made kick ass Mac's that performed BETTER than Apple's stuff and cost LESS than Apple's stuff. Apple got pissy, revoked all licensing and has been doing it since.

I support 20+ THOUSAND PC's and over 1000 servers. All run Windows. I don't have to worry about viruses and spyware, because Windows based systems work perfectly fine.

That so called thing about Mac's being more stable has been bunk since the release of Windows 2000. Say such things really does make it look like you been hitting the RDF Koolaide a bit too hard.

Pure fun? Lemme see, none of the games I play work on the Mac. Thus my PC running Vista is a LOT more fun. Not to mention I have fun building my own PC with whatever hardware I chose to put into it. Can you do that with a Mac? Nope. Not even close. Thus you really are stuck with the Mac. Or rather, stuck with whatever Apple chooses to sell you...

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:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X?

[EvanED]

VMware and VirtualPC are detectable because pre-hardware virtualization x86 was too slow to virtualize completely. The problem comes up because the x86 has security-sensitive but non-privileged instructions. The classic example is SIDT. This instruction stores the contents of the interrupt descriptor register (that gives the processor the address of the interrupt service routine to run when an interrupt arrives) into a given location in memory; it can be used in user mode. However, an OS needs to be able to issue the LIDT instruction that sets the IDT so that it points to its ISR. Now, when running in a VM, the hypervisor needs to somehow trap (at least conceptually) when the guest OS issues the LIDT instruction, because the IDT needs to point to the hypervisor's ISR instead of the guest OS's. Instead, the hypervisor records what the guest OS tried to set it to, and emulates calls to in when interrupts arrive in the future. But now the IDT contents are different what the OS thinks they should be -- so issuing the LIDT in kernel space then the SIDT instruction (probably in either kernel or user space, but to be safe in user space) and comparing if the IDT is what the OS thinks it should be indicates if you're in a VMWare- or VirtualPC-style VM. (If they differ, you're in a VM.)

Now, what would be required to change this? VMWare accomplishes virtualization by binary rewriting: they examine the stream of instructions that are about to execute, and change it so that they will operate appropriately. Instructions that change the priviledged state of the machine (such as LIDT) are essentially translated into system calls, because the guest OS is now running in user space instead of kernel space. However, they only do this binary translation for the kernel. They don't do it for any user applications that run. The reason is that it's somewhat slow; it's why running a system in VMWare is slower than running it on the bare metal. Imagine if they also had to do binary translation on user space processes. But that's exactly what they would have to do if they wanted to protect against a user application issuing a SIDT instruction to read the privileged state.

So it's not so much that it's detectable on purpose as it is they decided (pretty much completely rightly) that the performance hit that would be required to protect aginst this would be far, far, FAR worse than allowing detectability.

It's for this reason that I don't think there is ANY x86 virtualization program that both works on pre-VT/Pacifica hardware (that avoids this issue) and is undetectable. (I bet that even Xen with a paravirtualized Linux could be detected via this method.) The closest you get is Bochs, but that's complete emulation, not virtualization. (Because that's almost what you need if you want to completely virtualize x86 before direct HW support.) In other words, by your definition, there AREN'T any good virtualization software products for year-old x86 chips.

(Also, another interesting point; VMWare has a paper out that demonstrates that their binary rewriting is actually about an order of magnitude faster than hardware virtualization on some tasks for the first P4s that supported it.)

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

[CheckeredFlag]

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.

OS X "just works" because Apple has a very limited set of hardware configurations that they need to support. You have to admit that Microsoft has done an admirable job at supporting an almost infinite number of hardware combinations. It's really amazing that Windows works at all - especially when it relies on a lot of third party drivers, of which they have no control.

If Apple were to allow users to install OS X on unsupported hardware, could you imagine the Apple bashing when the flood of incompatibility reports start flowing in? "OS X crashes on this motherboard using this video card and that usb device! Apple sucks!"

Much of the success of Apple's simplicity and reliability is the direct result of being able to control both the software and hardware.

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

[ostermei]

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.

There is one very common task under Windows that many users perform daily (multiple times daily, in fact) that is, quite possibly, the most intuitive computing task around!

One of the major benefits of a Windows machine is its customizability, right? So the standard Windows user likes to have control over his machine. If anything were to go wrong with an application as he's using it, however, he may briefly consider switching to an alternative system (such as a Mac, or this "Linux" thing he's been hearing about lately). Finally, however, he decides to stick with Windows, as he knows all the software he's purchased for Windows won't work on a Mac or under Linux and the last thing he wants to do is have to delete all that expensive software.

See? It's all very logical and intuitive!

Alternatives

[justanyone]

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. ]

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say every ethernet user on this planet is a MAC user. Dunno how a RTL8139 would handle Aero, though.

Running Vista using bootcamp...

[Anubis350]

...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...

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[rwyoder]

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?

For the same reason I bought Mercedes and then went to all the trouble of installing a Yugo engine it it.

Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp

[RalphBNumbers]

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.

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:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[boxlight]

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?

I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.

Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows.

boxlight

This is going too far ;)

[Beached]

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.

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

[VGPowerlord]

I was all set to mod you up until you said

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.

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.

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:Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com]

The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.

I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.

It's actually kind of eerie how well it works!

Re:Why not?

[djh101010]

Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything? (snip of blah blah blah) Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac. But I can't help but wonder what, if any, direct personal recent experience you have with them. It may surprise you, but many Mac people who don't like MS, are intimately familiar with their products. The opposite, oddly enough, rarely seems to be true. It's OK if you enjoy your Windows systems. Really. That's just fine. But when you then go on to speak of that which you either don't understand, or choose to misrepresent, well, it goes into "give it a rest, wouldya?"

More a Problem for Linux than Mac Boxes?

[mr-mafoo]

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.)

This obviously doesn't apply to Bootcamp

[Spaztian]

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.

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

[mr_matticus]

That depends on the definition of "emulated" you use. If somewhere toward the beginning, it talks about the use of a virtual machine or some other kind of software emulation, you'd have to test their definition. If the architecture is emulated in hardware, you'd be off the hook. There are protections against "unreasonable and unintended consequences" in contract language, and this would be one of them--but more importantly, you'd never need them because Microsoft would never construe microcode emulation to be in violation of their license. I suspect you were modded up simply because of your shrink wrap jab. Back in the real world, though, your concern has nothing to do with EULAs but rather contract language in general (that is, ALL contracts would be affected by this pedantry), especially those with more dire consequences (corporate licensing and binding stipulation).

Well done

[Kabal`]

Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.

1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!

Re:Uhmm

[ocelotbob]

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.

Yeah

[Infonaut]

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

Like you said, it's *only* been reported 17 times.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[Tau Neutrino]

I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.
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.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[93 Escort Wagon]

"Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows."

Yes, exactly. Like for me it's Microsoft Paint.

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.

Re:Not all "cheap" versions

[NotQuiteReal]

You can't legally use MSDN versions for "production" use. MSDN is "cheap" because it is for development purposes.

The point is not that the "cheaper" versions of Vista won't work in a virtual machine, it is that it is contrary to the license terms.

If you are going to violate a license agreement, it is cheaper to violate something cheaper than MSDN.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[nmb3000]

First, the article should be tagged flamebait.

Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

Well, here are the important parts from the license agreement:

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE

6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

And here:

WINDOWS VISTA BUSINESS

f. Use with Virtualization Technologies. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so,
you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights
management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content
or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights
management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk
drive encryption.

Obviously this says nothing about Macs.

It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations.

The wording does seem to suggest this. By saying you cannot install it in VM running on the "licensed device " it sounds like it just means you cannot run the software inside a VM on the same machine that's already been licensed for it. If you buy Ultimate, they're basically giving you two licenses, one for the physical machine and one for use in the VM. The Home versions do not include this "bonus" license.

Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot...

[IronTeardrop]

... isn't there some editorial process here that is supposed to filter out obvious stupidity?

Re:Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot...

[QuantumG]

Subscribers actually see these stories early.. and there's a line on them that says "if you see anything obviously wrong with this article, email ..." and there's a link. About 2 times out of the 8 times I've emailed something has happened that appears to be in response to my email. "dupe" seems to get them jumping. For this article I emailed "this doesn't affect bootcamp" but I was ignored.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[myowntrueself]

Apple moves into VM?

Maybe, but in a very sluggish and almost useless way.

Call me when I can run OSX on a VM under OSX. Oh and in such a way as its supported both by Apple and the vendor of the VM system.

Tell me that I'm wrong and that Apple supports running OSX in a VM, go on I'd like that. A lot.

hmm.. I vote - don't care - safe to ignore.

[GodInHell]

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.

Re:oh boo f'ing who....

[wass]

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.

Re:one more reason not to upgrade to vista

[east coast]

That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with.

Any stiffer than Apple forcing PC users to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS? I guess, by your own standards, it's just one more reason to never buy Apple.

Re:Why not?

[Ziwcam]

Do you really think that the versions of OS X over the years have only ever added minimal features as typically included in a service pack? Dashboard, expose, and spotlight are all major features added just to the last release. Features that, coincidently, Microsoft has decided to emulate and also charge for in Vista.

The features added in each release are quite a bit more than a mere "service pack". Granted, each release may not have as many new features as Vista, but they also don't take 6 years to get out the door, either.

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:you're missing the point

[Rutulian]

Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.

Where does it say that in the OS X license agreement? I only see restrictions pertaining to Apple hardware, not virtual machines.

Microsoft: We want more money to let you run Vista under virtualization.

Make that twice as expensive to run Vista inside another OS. Vista Ultimate costs about $400 compared to Premium which is about $250.

This is not discriminating against macs

[jonwil]

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)?

Re:Why not?

[malchus842]

Sorry, but 10.2 to 10.3, or 10.3 to 10.4 are NOT service packs. The service packs are the 3rd digit: 10.3.2, 10.4.8 and so on. When the middle digit changes, they charge - and they provide significant new features. When the last digit changes, they provide bug fixes. Very simple.

If you are going to rail on the Mac, fine, but please at least know what you are talking about.

Re:oh boo f'ing who....

[joeytmann]

Choices not limited? Ummm, I can pretty much buy parts from any number of manufacturers and OEMs and install Vista/XP on it no problem and the license allows this. OSX on the other hand, sure you can probably install it on a lot of different types of hardware, but if you do you will be in direct violation of the OSX license, plus you better be a pretty smart guy as usually this involves using bootcamp in some sort of odd fashion.

How is this like the MS "age-old anti-trust behavior"? All they are saying is that we don't want to support running VMs on our most basic OS. It would be like trying to make your GE fridge act like a maytag dish washer, sure you can problem do it if you can figure out how, but don't go to either for help if you break something, you'll be paying for new parts.

As for running VM's, do you think there are home users, aka mom and dad that can barely can tell the difference between OSX and Vista, that really want to run Vista Home in a VM? I think not, the only people that want to do it are tech geeks that need to test software. Vista is clearly NOT a server class OS. If you are a developer and need to run lots of VMs, get Windows Server Ent, VMWare, whatever. Yes a lot more expensive, but they are supported and licensing isn't a problem. Then you can properly test all the software you want.

And yeah, maybe atcually RTFM. This article says VMs on Vista Home, of any kind, isn't allowed. So you can't even run Vista in a VM on a Vista host using MS'es free VirtualServer2005.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Nintendork]

I wonder how many of the slashdot readers read the comments on articles to find out which ones are just plain wrong? Slashdot's approval of blatant lies and reverse-FUD is embarrassing and immature.

MAC != Mac

[antdude]

MAC Address? If you want to say Apple computer's Mac. Case!!

I wish it were so...

[ratboy666]

"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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Locutus]

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

What is a "licensed device"? Is Microsoft saying that they are once again, locking their OS to the hardware?

Now, what would the "licensed device" be with a standalone copy of Vista Home Basic if the original intent is to run it in a VM? There is no licensed device unless the VM image is the licensed device?

The way I read what the EULA is attempting to say, they don't allow you to run the version of Microsoft Windows Vista, which you purchased with the computer, inside a virtual machine on that computer or any other computer. ie you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places.

LoB

What is the definition of Virtual Hardware?

[GiMP]

You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

I believe this ONLY prohibits software virtualization. The EULA clearly notes (page 1, #2) that a "hardware partition" is defined as a separate device. One could clearly argue that hardware virtualization of the likes of AMD's Pacifica and Intel's VT are can be called "hardware partitions". If not, what is a hardware partition? Multiple motherboards in a single chassis? Multiple northbridges and southbridges with dedicated processing cores on a single PCB? Where do we draw lines?

Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.

Macs are *pretending* to be PC's?

[suv4x4]

Macs pretending to be PCs

Funny, and I thought nowadays Apple sells PC's pretending to be Macs.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[nmb3000]

The wording is somewhat odd, but it's probably partially because the idea of VMs is pretty new and they are just trying to adjust traditional licensing terms to the idea.

What is a "licensed device"?

I think the licensed device is the system that Windows is running on. If you buy one copy of Home and install it on your computer, that system is the licensed device. If you buy a computer from Dell, that computer is the licensed device. A VM running on these systems would be considered a separate entity and need it's own software license.

Now, what would the "licensed device" be with a standalone copy of Vista Home Basic if the original intent is to run it in a VM?

The way I read it, the licensed device in this case would be the VM. I see no reason why you couldn't run Home under a Windows/Mac/Linux VM if that is the only place you install it.

you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places

I think that's exactly it. Home versions of Vista come with ONE "full" license (to be used on any hardware) and ZERO "virtual" licenses. Enterprise and Ultimate versions come with ONE full license and ONE virtual license (to be used on the same machine as the full license was). Following this logic, it would be just fine if you bought Ultimate, installed it first in a VM (using the full license), then installed it in another VM (using the virtual license) running inside the original VM.

Really, it's not that bad. If this is indeed what they were trying to say, the license is pretty nice for the Ultimate and Enterprise editions. The whole point seems to be to prevent someone from trying to bypass the licensing agreement by installing Vista in dozens of VMs using only a single license.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[daveschroeder]

Yes, this article is crap, but for what it's worth, the Vista Home Basic and Home Premium license is intended to prohibit use in any kind of virtual machine environment. I had the same line of reasoning you did. Vista Ultimate does come with two licenses, but Home Basic and Home Premium really do intend (apparently) to prohibit use in virtualization. This has been covered repeatedly, and confirmed by Microsoft representatives.

-----

On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:

Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in a virtual machine.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das@doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com
Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?

Paul,

In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all
this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

"4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or
otherwise emulated) hardware system."

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside
a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".

This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization
product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed
anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".

The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and
Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the
same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment
on the same device where Vista is already installed.

The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of
virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can
still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such
as Parallels or VMWare.

[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is
already installed on a licensed device.

[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already
installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it
in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business
and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses
specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these
specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in
the EULA in the first place.

Thoughts?

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[westlake]

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?

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Locutus]

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

EULAs: This may be a dumb question...

[Pfhorrest]

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?

Re:Apples moves into VM

[wfWebber]

So, just to clarify, if I want to run it on my Mac, I will have to pay for it? Now there's a wild concept.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Darby]

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.

Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property. You can't make copies for other people due to copyright law, but if you want to install it in a virtual machine running on your toaster then knock yourself out.

There is not one god damned thing in the world that allows them to dictate how you choose to use your property.

Pretending that they have rights that they do not and treating this nonsense in their meaningless EULA as if it were even sane is just fucking retarded.

Run it anywhere you damn well please. It is your right if you paid for it.

Re:Why not?

[nicolas.kassis]

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.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[cibyr]

Call it: "write once, test everywhere"

It's better than the old "write once, debug everywhere!"

Bollocks.

[DimGeo]

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.

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

[Darby]

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.

I have yet to hear of a single court case lending any validity to that viewpoint.
Were I to buy one of their products, I'd head down to the computer store, pay Microcenter for a product in a box and I would own it. Whatever nonsense they want to write inside the box is meaningless.
There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[amorsen]

Some folk think that the best editor ever was the original vi.

ed is the standard text editor.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[killjoe]

"I have yet to hear of a single court case lending any validity to that viewpoint."

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.

"Were I to buy one of their products, I'd head down to the computer store, pay Microcenter for a product in a box and I would own it."

You own the box, you own the CD that came in the box, you own the papers in the box. You don't own the program, you are merely licensing it's use from MS under the terms they dictate.

"There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction."

You are simply wrong.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[cheater512]

Yeah thats with XP. This is NEW Windows Vista with 20% more EULA.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Lonewolf666]

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.

In Germany, a Microsoft EULA clause that forbids unbundling of OEM versions has failed in court a few years ago. It was the Bundesgerichtshof to boot, Germany's highest court in non-constitutional affairs.

Large companies use EULAs as FUD tactics far more often than you think. If the EULA can scare most people into obeying (not counting those who outright pirate the software anyway), it has served its purpose even if it doesn't hold water in court.

Depends on jurisdiction - example where M$ lost

[Lonewolf666]

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.

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)?

Re:Apples moves into VM

[node 3]

The concept of the EULA has been tested and upheld now in numerous lawsuits in numerous states. I call "bullshit". In fact, I call "super-bullshit" since the exact opposite is the case.

"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid ... A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable"

Taken from: wikipedia.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[grahamm]

I think that it is about time that governments passed laws stipulated that licences only be allowed to add to your legal rights and not be allowed to restrict actions which would be allowed in the absence of the licence.

Reading Skills 101 for slashclowns

[theolein]

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.

If Home users on Macs want Vista Premium to Game they can,........ wait for it ..... simply dual boot in the Bootcamp partition and run Vista Premium natively.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Dogtanian]

The idea behind EULA's is that under some theories of copyright law you do not have the right to copy the software from the CD to your hard drive. The EULA grants you that right. (IANAL also) Surely if the software requires to be copied to a hard drive to fulfil its stated purpose, then any reasonable court would (or should) consider that there is implied permission to do just that, with no EULA necessary.

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.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[init100]

Indeed, which is why the many open source programs that require you to agree to the GPL on installation (of the binary only release!) really get my goat.

My theory is that they do that so that people understand that the software is copyrighted even though it is free of charge. Some people tend to believe that free software is public domain, and that you can do anything you want with it, such as including it into proprietary derivative works. Those people need to realize that it is not, and that is usually when they start complaining about the GPL and the "unfairness" of not letting them use it in derivative works without also distributing the source under the GPL.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[ari_j]

The common law is the body of case law in a given jurisdiction. It originated in England, as compared to the civil law countries of the European continent (and Quebec and Louisiana, going back to their French roots). English colonies inherited the common law and, by and large, are still common law jurisdictions today. That includes every state in the US (other than Louisiana) that was added after independence.

Now, as to the common law of contract, the statement is still not necessarily right. General rule of thumb: Don't get your legal advice from Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Internet.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[ari_j]

Check out the list of categories on that article:

• NPOV disputes
• Wikipedia articles needing factual verification
• Articles with unsourced statements since February 2007
• All articles with unsourced statements

More importantly, read about Wikipedia's stance on legal advice. Finally, remember not to get legal advice from the internet. Not from Slashdot, and not from Wikipedia.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[squiggleslash]

KDE?

Re:Apples moves into VM

[TheRaven64]

You wanna run Vista? Now there's a wild concept.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[C0rinthian]

Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid, and in the case of an EULA you get nothing. You get permission to use their software. Although many here would not consider it a benefit...

Re:Apples moves into VM

[dlim]

Large companies use EULAs as FUD tactics far more often than you think. If the EULA can scare most people into obeying (not counting those who outright pirate the software anyway), it has served its purpose even if it doesn't hold water in court. It's pretty common knowledge that the average person doesn't even read EULAs. So why bother if the motive is just FUD? At least some lawyers must believe these things have legal value.

Re:We'll name it the "BrokenHalo question"

[contrapunctus]

I find this a common attitude on mac oriented forums:

Person 1: "I want to do this. How can I do it?"
Person 2: "Well why would you want to do that?" and proceeds to explain how it's a stupid idea and how one shouldn't do it (or provide an irrelevant solution/rant).

Most of the time Person 1 has a legitimate/rational reason. Person 2 (who often is barely competent) can't conceive of every situation but feels free to criticize Person 1 without providing help.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Locutus]

haven't been around very long I see. It's called the "tying arrangement" and if you were REALLY interested, it's just a google search away. But I'll help you a bit.

http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-antitrust-act
NOTE: look for the part called "tying arrangement".

LoB LOL