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."

Comments

Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[bluephone]

If sounds like a Mac penalty because you didn't listen. They require the pricier version of Vista for ALL virtualization, not just on Macs. If you want to run Vista in a VM on a PC you're under the same requirement by the EULA.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[SiliconEntity]

Right, and keep in mind that you can install Vista on a Mac in a dual-boot configuration, and then these rules about virtualization do not apply. AFAIK you can install any version of Vista on a Mac, dual-boot, and it's perfectly legal. It's really no different than for Windows users.

Disingenous dupe FUD

[The Bungi]

You've reported this previously, with the same FUD "OMG MS IS TEH EVILZ" slant designed to outrage everyone into an ad-impression frenzy. TFA points out (not that you did) that this refers to virtualization, and does not apply to dual-booting. The restriction applies to Windows-on-Windows as much as it does on the Mac or any other OS. One might argue that the restriction is "bad", but it's very different from the "Microsoft sticks it to poor Mac users on purpose" summary. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't use Windows. It's that simple.

Really, how many times are you planning to run this "story"? Maybe the plan is to stop once the FUD meme is spread to your satisfaction like all the others before?

There are enough things to criticize Microsoft over. These FUD campaigns are going to backfire one of these days. You can only claim you're being FUD'ed for so long before everyone realizes you're no better.

Mathew Ingram is late...

[michrech]

Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot before. You can read the *first* article about this here.

Doesn't affect anything

[Have Blue]

Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's a set of tools (firmware patch, driver CD creator, NTFS formatter with nondestructive partitioning) that allow Apple hardware to boot Vista directly. You won't violate the cheap Vista license if you use it under Boot Camp. You only need the expensive version for Parallels, which lets you run an OS in a window as an OS X app (real virtualization).

FUD

[iamacat]

You can not run the host and guest OS of Vista Home using the same key. Microsoft gives you extra permissions to run several copies of Vista business on the same machine using only one license. Nobody is stopping you from running Vista Home Basic under Parallels if you bought a dedicated license for this purpose. In fact, it would be dubious since Mac+OSX+Parallels can be viewed as simply another computer and, for all its ills, Microsoft is not practicing hardware lock-ins.

Re:Dupe

[dal20402]

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

Apple's (not "Mac's"; a Mac is a computer, not a company) license doesn't say anything about virtualization. It requires you to run the OS on Apple hardware. If you want to run OS X on a virtual machine within Linux or Windows on your Mac, that's just fine.

Re:Dupe

[myowntrueself]

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

IIRC, the OSX license only states that you can only run it on Apple hardware.

Since a virtual machine running on a Mac *is* running on Apple hardware there should be no problem running OSX on a VM running on Apple hardware.

Re:Sick and tired

[matth]

Can you not use TurboTax? It works just fine on a Mac.

MSDN

[Bastardchyld]

If you need to test an app on Vista then presumably you are developing an app for Windows. If this is true then you probably already have a MSDN subscription. This subscription provides you with MSDN versions of M$ software so that you can have test enviroments to vet your software. This MSDN software comes bundled with its own license so this does not apply anyways.