Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac

Posted by Zonk on from the they've-got-to-make-money-somehow-right dept.

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."

2 of 545 comments (clear)

  1. The "defectivebydesign" tag... by StarKruzr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... was never so appropriate.

    "Security vulnerabilities?" You mean how you can isolate a VM away from the rest of the world and if it gets infected with a virus, you can just shut it off, blow it away and start over?

    THAT kind of security vulnerability? How incredibly, incredibly lame.

    --

    +++ATH0
    1. Re:The "defectivebydesign" tag... by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The primary "Defect" here is that number of different Vista versions are being decided by a former toilet paper salesman , rather than by any sane engineering rationale. There ought to be no more than three; "Client", "Server", "Really Big Server", ala NT 4.0. Cut the consumer-confusing price "optimization", and clone that feature from MacOS (or their own past) as well.

      In rant mode, one could argue that they ought to charge you more if you run without virtualization from a more secure operating system, because you're going to have more problems. I'd love to see a Vista install instruction sheet that begins with, "have a competent admin install and secure Solaris-10 + VMWare on your laptop..."

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken