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
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
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?
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.