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."
Microsoft and Apple are competitors!!
Ka-wow!
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Paranoia doesnt disqualify the fact they are out to get you.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
It's not more expensive hardware.
Go to http://www.apple.com/uk/ and look at the spec and price of a mid range Mac Book. Then go to http://www.dell.co.uk/ and spec up a Dell Inspiron laptop with the same specs as that Mac Book and you'll find they actually come out with the Dell being a few quid more than the Mac (Spec 2Ghz Core 2 Duo, 1 Gb 667Mhz memory, bluetooth, wifi, shiny 1280 x 800 screen, integral graphics, Vista Ultimate) for the same functionality.
And that excludes the fact that OS-X is more memory and processor efficient than Vista on the same hardware so you actually need a faster processor and memory on the Windows machine. If you do the same exercise with a desktop machine and an iMac (2.13 Ghz Core Duo 2, 1Ghz Memory, etc. I can't find a Dell with a high enough spec graphics card and they don't support wifi and bluetooth on the model I picked), the iMac is even cheaper (about £100). The hardware cost no longer holds true when buying a computer from a reliable manufacture.
Generally when people say Macs are expensive they're thinking of the old days when they were prohibitively so. And when they argue its still true its because they're comparing a PC put together at home from components and forget about the cost of the software. When I looked through the feature sets of Vista I decided the only one I would want to have is Ultimate since its the only one that has everything I need. (I currently run XP Pro on my PC at home). Ultimate costs £300!
But hey, as a Windows developer you _are_ used to rip-off prices for dev-tools, libraries, etc, aren't you? :-(
Wait a moment, i hate Apple too. Btw, who wants to run Vista virtualized? It can hardly run un-virtualized.
Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry