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.
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.
1) The EULA terms apply to all VMs, not just Macs.
2) This anonymous comment found here says: Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
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."
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.
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
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
The point is to force business customers wanting to multiplex Vista on their big servers to buy more expensive versions of it. I think the Mac virtual machine business is just a side effect.
Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. People are getting clued in to the fact that you don't need to suffer running a Windows PC in order to run Windows apps.
Every day I need to use multiple linux VMs and several Windows-only engineering apps, but I prefer to do as much as possible (especially email and desktop apps) in MacOS. With Parallels, the whole problem of needing multiple machines is completely solved, and the Coherence feature "just works". I can fit my whole life on one MacBook now instead of a clunky fugly Dell laptop, and I feel like my productivity has doubled.
I can totally see why Microsoft sees VMs as a threat. They give you the Windows apps you're forced to use due to Microsoft lock-in, but they let you get your work done on a good, modern, reliable OS. I can keep using the Windows XP license I already have, and because it runs in a VM I can upgrade my "hardware" without ever getting nagged about license keys. And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC. And I sure as heck don't have to upgrade to Vista any time soon.
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
Because if you only need to run one or two apps, it doesn't make much sense to have to shut down all your other apps just to run the few programs that don't run under OS X.
Marxism is the opiate of dumbasses
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
Yup, me too. The question still remains, "Why Vista?" Why devote that large a chunk of your resources to an OS that spends most of its time making sure you're not being naughty?
I mean, XP is bad enough, but can be tamed. And it's going to be sufficient for any Windows operation you might want to perform on a Mac. I've got it running under Parallels, and it's not so bad.
But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.
Lemmings are silly; dinosaurs are extinct.
From what I've seen, this does not just apply to multiple installations. You really are not allowed to install a basic version on a VM, even if you buy a unique copy and only use it for that purpose.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
Well, here are the important parts from the license agreement: And here: 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.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
... isn't there some editorial process here that is supposed to filter out obvious stupidity?
Yes, they have a lovely contract that says I cannot install this on a VM. Okay.. that's lovely - saddly since it's only revealed after purchase once the return policy is voided, is an obvious adhesion contract (a contract with fixed terms that you MUST agree with to use a service), and the contracts sole purpose it to leverage it's unreasonable position of advantadge to force the client into an untenable position.
Translation, I could break that baby in court after thirty seconds of argument before a judge.
-GiH
Just a law student.
The problem isn't that your choices are limited, the problem is that Microsoft lets you run your licensed copy of Vista ONLY if Vista is the primary booted OS and not virtual. Despite the fact that it's running on the same damn computer whether it's virtual or not. Oh, unless you pay them a few hundred bucks extra, then you can run it virtual. This is the typical age-old anti-trust behavior they've been engaging in for the past 20+ years. Apple on the other hand lets you do whatever the hell you want with the hardware and software. They allow you to do whatever you want with OS X, as long as you're running it on OS X supported hardware. You are complaining that the pool of OS X hardware is smaller, while most other people here are complaining that Microsoft charges you a hefty fee if you want to run Windows to run as a VM inside another OS even though you legally purchased it to work with that specific hardware. Apple gives you the same rights on the same hardware, Microsoft makes you pay more unless they're the OS 'in charge' on your system.
make world, not war
"Apple will let you run OS X on any computer it's licensed for, regardless of what other OS's may also be running on the computer. As long as you can run OS X on that computer, they don't give a shit what you do with it.
Microsoft, on the other hand, says you only have Vista rights if Vista is the primary OS at that time. Or you can pay them much more money to play fairly, despite the fact that you purchased a copy of Vista licensed to run on this particular computer. Microsoft is restricting your ability to use the software you purchased to run on that computer, and only let you do so if they're the software in charge. This is typical Microsoft behavior and has been since day one."
It's quite disingenuous to claim that Apple is being more reasonable with respect to virtualization.
Microsoft: We want more money to let you run Vista under virtualization.
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Microsoft's terms suck, there's no doubt about that. Apple's are worse.
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
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.
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?
When you add an HD tuner or Blu-Ray drive to your Mac you will discover that the rules for HD content protection are the same.
Vista spends most of its time doing what OSX does most of its time: running applications and maintaining an end-user oriented GUI.
I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.
Yup, me too
But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.
Please explain to me how a programmer writing cross-platform apps in Java (or any other language) avoids testing on Vista.
Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and as such they are NOT allowed to the same 'competitive' practices as others. The "convicted" part is stated because they've already shown to have used their monopoly position illegally under the rules of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Apple is not even close to being a monopoly so they can do as they please under normal competitive rules.
Why is this soooo difficult for people to understand....
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
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.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway. -- Andrew S. Tanenbaum
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.
It's not exactly rocket surgery.
That's right, if it's an EULA that you are presented with after paying for the product then it is not an agreement. Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid, and in the case of an EULA you get nothing. Microsoft could give these terms before you buy, in which case they would be part of an agreement.
That would seem like the logical thing but in today's world you didn't buy it and it's not your property. You have simply paid MS for the rights to use their intellectual property under the terms they dictate.
People here complain about the GPL but at least the GPL does not apply to you if you are merely USING the software.
evil is as evil does
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.
Yeah thats with XP. This is NEW Windows Vista with 20% more EULA.
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.
C - the footgun of programming languages
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)?
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid
Taken from: wikipedia.
Viewed in that context, the EULA could be considered "damage limitation", that actually, they *will* explicitly let you copy it, but on their terms. Legally, if what I said above holds, then any "rights" the EULA gives you which are weaker than the (arguably) implied rights that you (again arguably) already have, they should be irrelevant. But I suspect they may be able to get away with fudging this sort of issue due to the vagueness of user rights in the first place.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
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.