Slashdot Mirror
MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac
ktwdallas writes "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization. Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement. According to the article, Microsoft's reasoning is 'because of security issues with virtualization technology'. Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify."
I wouldn't install any version of Vista on my computer if they paid me.
You've already overpaid for the hardware, why should Microsoft miss out on the action? Mac users are already bent over and lubed up from Apple...
Honestly, with the Mac worldwide installed base falling after a six month blip...do enough people actually care?
Thank you! I get the feeling that most slashdot readers are just getting dumber by the day, possibly by taking cues from Zonk.
I'm not really sure why someone would put Vista on a Mac anyway. It's like going out, buying a nice new car, and then slashing the tires before you drive it off the lot.
Fortunately in America we have the right to decided whats done with our own intellectual property. The consumer has the right not to buy ANYTHING from microsoft. The American consumers rationality can be debated elsewhere.
Someone gave me a copy of the Windows XP that runs on Macs. I installed it any never used it.
Lets look at this though. Who are the primary people who use this stuff?
The average user? no. I have a word processor, web browsing, chats, media players on my Mac. I can send e-mails just fine, thank you. I'm very happy with my mac.
The gamer? no. Games don't run well under virtualization.
The Mac guy who works for a business who's backwords management team decided to base an enterprise solution on something that only runs on windows? DING DING DING. we have a winner. Microsoft hopes that they will be willing to pay more. Businesses typically have deeper pockets then the average consumer.
man, mac fagbois sure do look for the dark, personal side of every matter don't they? this applies to any virtualization of vista. get over yourselves mac fagbois, you're not being singled out.
now go back to your homosexual ways. you're boring me, again.
stanley kubrick would kick you in the nutsack for being such limp wrists.
Who died and left you king of moderation? Maybe this shit is redundant because we've heard it a million times before, indeed felt for decades and decades, and even bothering to mention it anymore only reveals how much of a latecomer you really are to awareness of Microsoft's signature mediocrity. Fucking snore.
Make Slashdot readable! See journal.
Please tell me where I could buy Windows.
I've seen plenty of places selling licenses to run Windows, and the Windows installation media. But never have I seen Windows for sale.
In the world I live in, you buy license to run software, and are bound to (some - based on your jurisdiction) the terms of the license. You don't like Windows EULA? Buy a Mac. Don't like their license? Agree to GPL conditions. Think GPL is viral? Use BSD software...
Just buying the Vista DVD at Best Buy doesn't entitle you do whatever you want with it.
I'll be here all week.
Not true. I'm "required" to have a windows OS to do my tax using software, particularly if I wish to do it online. sure there are workarounds. But they are workarounds. It's racism in software!
Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
So, it is not a Mac penalty, it is a VMWare penalty.
Since when is paying for the right license a penalty. The cheaper license doesn't allow VM, the more expensive does.
It's no more penalty that it's a penalty that 10-seat licenses cost more than 5-seat licenses, or that a commercial license costs more than educational.
Because the launch price of the cheapest version of Windows Vista whose questionably enforceable EULA allows virtualization is much greater than the launch price of the cheapest version of Windows XP whose questionably enforceable EULA allowed virtualization.
And..? Who the hell says companies should allow virtualization in their licenses for free? Are you coming from Mars?