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."
Old news, that is a requirement for running virtual on any machine not just Macs. Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!
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.
jX [ Make everything as simple as possible, but no simpler. - Einstein ]
... 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
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.
First of all this story is weeks if not months old, and a dupe to boot. Second of all this applies only if you run vista in/as a virtual machine not if you install on a mac that also has virtulization (for another OS say). In other words you can use boot camp to boot to your heart's content but can't run the cheaper Vista version in a VM under OS X just like everyone else in the fucking world who wants to run vista under a VM.
I mean what the hell is up with Apple users and their inferiority/persecution complexes? This applies to all VMs and likely the number of non-mac users running windows under a VM (developers, linux users, etc.) is far larger than the number of Mac users who'd be doing it.
And what, Apple lets you virtualize OS X?
The anti-virtualization clause is likely unenforceable anyway *. However, most businesses that use Windows buy volume license agreements under contract, and the contract states that they will obey the EULA. That brings the EULA from the gray area into enforceability for them.
* They know that their DRM system can be cracked easily by virtualization. They might be able to win under the DMCA because of this.
I'm not a lawyer, I just read a lot.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Take off the tinfoil hat and be realistic. Besides, the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged the existence of 0S/2 WARP concentration camps.
What about XP? What about question marks?
#6495ED - cornflower blue
Who says you have to be a consumer-level user to want to install a consumer-level version of Vista?
It would be nice to be able to test whether an app works on all versions of Vista without having to have them all on physical boxes.
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).
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.
The only security issue I can see is from Microsoft's perspective: if Windows is merely a guest OS hosted on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or other, it is obviously not the users' primary operating system. Since it is not their primary operating system it is clear they are either not a fan of Microsoft, or even worse, are loyal to a competitor's product, be it free/OSS or proprietary. Since the days are numbered for earning revenue from that customer, what better way to maximize profits from that customer by requiring them to buy the products with the highest profit margin, despite the fact that the customers do not need the eye candy and other non-features the premium versions provide?
It's all about short term gains. Rather than focusing on maintaining long-term growth (Microsoft has already grown as much as they can and they know it) Microsoft has turned from being one of the most customer-friendly companies around to being one of the most hostile; revoking your first sale doctrine rights (e.g., you cannot transfer a COMMODITY PRODUCT from an old PC to a new PC), spying on your computing activities (genuine advantage) and jacking up prices when the customer is receiving LESS value with the new OS (it hogs RAM and processor, boasts slower I/O AND is DRM-heavy). Also, they claim that F/OSS is bad because it does not come with a warranty or support. Well, have you ever read the Microsoft EULA? It comes with no support, and warranties and liabilities are EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.
Where is the value in the backing of a big company again?
My company has developed custom software solutions for customers, one of which is an interesting software registration (Windows activation-like - well, more like Adobe CS's, but about three years before Adobe implemented theirs) architecture. We back these works for higher with a warranty, e.g., if a genuine bug is found, we fix it and issue the fix at no charge. Feature requests, of course, are billable (time/materials, basically the cost of doing business) but we don't waive warranty.
IMHO all software companies should back their products with support and bug fixes. Period. Microsoft doesn't; they downplay the impact of bugs (see yesterday's
Again, where is the value of Windows over F/OSS solutions?
Is it any shock they are requiring you to buy the high-end product to run as a guest OS? Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
There are online tax solutions, and there's the good old fashioned pen and paper approach. You aren't "required" to use anything. Myself, I use WifeOS to do my taxes, and WifeOS always handles my taxes with the pen and paper approach, this includes the messy self-employment tax schtuff, but WifeOS hasn't had a problem yet!
I love my sig.
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
[...]
Subject: ACPI extensions
One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows
specific.
It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without
having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.
Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.
Or maybe we could patent something related to this. This is clear evidence that they (at least) considered using patents and deliberately creating incompatibility to hurt competitors, even under the guise of being "open". Don't you think this virtualization pricing thing just might be less a concern about security (?) and more an attempt to do something similar via the EULA?
W
-------------------
This is my SIG. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
I laughed at this. It is a bit insightful but it is certainly funny too.
t m
On another note the OS X licence agreement states:
"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. "
So you can't even legally run a normal OS X in virtualization on a PC unless Apple made it. This is a much harsher license if you ask me.
source - http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.h
Microsoft: You need to pay more to run Vista under virtualization.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Microsoft isn't specifically targeting Mac users, they're targeting everyone that does virtualization, which is a pretty sizable group these days. I don't support the practice, but apparently I must point out that Apple is specifically targeting Mac users, and their terms are much more onerous than Microsoft's in this case.
Besides, can't you run the entry level Vista Home with Boot Camp?
I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
I think I still have a few 'rainbow' Apple stickers from the old Macintosh days. I could slap that on the side of any laptop I wanted to install OS X on.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Linux: It's free. Run it on whatever hardware you want. Run as many instances on as many machines as you damn well feel like. Treat it like it's yours to keep.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!
Beginning to understand yet?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
And if you at any point just express the desire to upgrade the hardware - to say nothing of the software - suddenly half your money will be spent on supporting legacy hardware.
Talk about vendor lock-in...
Ignore this signature. By order.