Microsoft Flip-flopping on Virtualization License

Cole writes "Microsoft came within a few hours of reversing its EULA-based ban on the virtualization of Vista Basic and Premium, only to cancel the announcement at the last minute. The company reached out to media and bloggers about the announcement and was ready to celebrate "user choice" before pulling the plug, apparently clinging to security excuses. From the article, "The threat of hypervisor malware affects Ultimate and Business editions just as much as Home Premium and Basic. As such, the only logical explanation is that Microsoft is using pricing to discourage users from virtualizing those OSes. Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware?" Something else must be going on here."

Comments

It's obvious

[GFree]

This is clearly Microsoft suffering a managerial battle of the wills. One half wants to bow down to pressure to reverse the EULA ban on virtulization, while the other half is strong opposed to relenting.

I suspect (hope) that desperation with the lack of popularity of Vista will force Microsoft's hand.

Re:It's obvious

[aichpvee]

How long before the EULA says that you can only run microsoft software on it? The DoJ isn't going to stop them these days and it seems like a more reasonable (doesn't take much, how is virtualizing a more secure OS going to be a security risk on windows!??!) case can be made that it would cut down on malware.

Re:It's obvious

[Savage-Rabbit]

This is clearly Microsoft suffering a managerial battle of the wills. One half wants to bow down to pressure to reverse the EULA ban on virtulization, while the other half is strong opposed to relenting. So each half is doing a non atomic operation and since each party is working independently of the other and they are constantly interrupting each others non atomic decision making process schizophrenic statements ensue. Correct me if I am wrong but that's a type of race condition isn't it?

Re:It's obvious

[fbjon]

No no, they simply took a snapshot before the announcement, then accidentally reverted to the previous state.

Re:It's obvious

[drsmithy]

I suspect (hope) that desperation with the lack of popularity of Vista will force Microsoft's hand.

Right. Because it's obviously that miniscule proportion of people who a) want to virtualise and b) won't just ignore the EULA that is responsible for the "lack of popularity".

It's simple price discrimination. Every business of any notable size does it, but apparently when Microsoft is concerned it's something uniquely evil, because I don't recall similar howls of outrage about, say, Red Hat Enterprise Linux only "supports" two physical CPUs.

Re:It's obvious

[drsmithy]

How long before the EULA says that you can only run microsoft software on it?

Given that the vast, vast majority of Windows PCs are bought to run some non-Microsoft software, and hardly anyone would be interested in a general-purpose OS that wasn't general-purpose, I'd be willing to say a very, very long time.

Re:It's obvious

[beardz]

That's a nice straw man you've pulled there.

Re:It's obvious

[3vi1]

How long before the EULA says that you can only run microsoft software on it?

Never. The second 3rd party games and SAP are no longer allowed, Microsoft loses all its home and business users.

Re:It's obvious

[MysteriousPreacher]

That would be tricky for MS to pull-off but they could just make it very difficult for certain applications to run on Windows. Require a certification process, implement technical measures to authenticate the applications and then use the DMCA to destroy anyone who dares to bypass the protection by using fake credentials.

Make it nice and expensive to obtain the credentials, or just use a clever licence agreement and that'll certainly stop the pesky open-source kids from meddling. The best thing is, if the DoJ decide to take an interest, MS can tell them that it's necessary for security.

I really can see Windows going the same as some console platforms. Either you make your software with permission or you don't do it at all.

Re:It's obvious

[ConceptJunkie]

Sounds like you're describing the whole "trusted computing" initiative. I don't doubt that's where MS is trying to go.

That's one of many reasons why I simply use Linux with a Windows 2000 VM for those games and other software I can't live without (and won't run in Wine).

Re:It's obvious

[MBGMorden]

Maybe not eliminate them, but they could well implement some "licensing" scheme for games, much like console manufacturer's (of which MS is one of now) do.

You can kinda already see it starting with the "Games for Windows" initiative. How long before a game (or any other app) needs to be digitally signed by MS before you can use it? Not for security or anything like that, but the manufacturer just has to pay MS it's dues so they can get their "Games for Windows" logo and the ability to run on the platform. It happens in the console world, and it can happen here too.

Re:It's obvious

[Darundal]

Said case that can be made would obviously have to ignore WGA, as well as a host of other little goodies in Microsoft software that offers to phone home in some way or another in a dialog that they know most people would merely skip over, if the user even has a choice in the matter.

Re:It's obvious

[Lockejaw]

How long before a game (or any other app) needs to be digitally signed by MS before you can use it?

Wasn't there already some stink raised about a similar plan for device drivers?

Re:It's obvious

[drinkypoo]

I really can see Windows going the same as some console platforms. Either you make your software with permission or you don't do it at all.

Well, we can only hope... because that would outright destroy Windows.

The main strength of Windows is the huge array of software, much of which would probably never pass and get signed.

Even more of it would never be submitted for signing.

Re:It's obvious

[Maxo-Texas]

So now we are playing the race card for software decisions?

Hmmph!

Re:It's obvious

[no1nose]

I really hope you are right. It is very refeshing to see consumers taking a break and not rushing to upgrade from XP.

Re:It's obvious

[MajinBlayze]

Yeah, but that's what is happening now, in Vista. If you are looking to complain about requiring MS signed drivers, you've missed the boat.

Re:It's obvious

[Lockejaw]

Nah, my post was more of a "haven't we already seen this?" sort of thing.

Re:It's obvious

[Maxo-Texas]

Well... someone didn't get the joke.

"race" condition vs "race" card.

Sigh...

Re:It's obvious

[MysteriousPreacher]

Yeah, that whole idea worries the hell out of me - particularly if they take the approach of having the hardware involved in the authorisation. I reckon that us in the western world are in the future going to rely on hardware manufacturers in the places like China and the developing world if we want to run any software that isn't totally locked-down. I hope that prediction turns out as false as the crap Nostradamus churned out.

Re:It's obvious

[MysteriousPreacher]

Now that's a name I haven't seen around for while. Nice to see you're still around drinkypoo.

Yeah, the hope will be that they go for wide appeal instead of the Nintendo model. I wonder what the average consumer wants though. Do they want a system in which they can download and install software from anywhere or do they want to be able to just pick a box from the shelf and be happy with that?

Re:It's obvious

[schotty]

Actually the license is simple:

On the non supported platforms, you can install and run Vista in a VM, but you get zero support. On the supported platforms, MS will support you via phone or email support to resolve any issues that crop up.

With the supported versions, you are allowed to do one native install or one vm, except the Enterprise, which is one native and 4 vms per key.

http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_lice nsing.asp

Personally, I did this = Bought my one copy for learning it for field repairs. Bound that copy or Ultimate to my main wworkstation. Each vm is using the trial and the rearm hack. To me I dont need 2 more keys, since the vms dont do anything except extend my workstation to the road. If MS became hostile, I would choose to just run ONE vm, and host it off of a remote VMWare server. Vista does nothing for me that RHEL cannot do, much less at even remotely the same quality as RHEL.

MS to me is running scared and is trying to magically create cash to influx into its next product. Vista == modern day ME. Its a flop. Everybody knows it. Just a matter of time before they are either dethroned or come back to their senses. 98 was good fwiw, 2k rocked, xp was okay, but the other interim releases stunk bad.

I find it interesting that non-geeks are complaining with mostly the same issues as we geeks/nerds are.

I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[wallyhall]

but could this just be Microsoft trying to squeeze yet more dollars of profit out of everything they can (i.e. now virtulization)?

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is WTF would really want to virtualize *Vista* anyway? If you want to run a Windows VM, XP without Aero/DRM will run a lot faster.

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it is an attempt to stop people switching to Linux or Apple.
Lots of people would want to switch - but still feel the need for a few apps that run only under Windows. If they can run Windows virtually, they would have the best of both worlds. If you tell those people they have to fork out an additional 200$ to have the right to do this, you make switching prohibitively expensive.
But another category of people who will be hit, are the software developers. There will be people that will not be able to fully test their software on the target platform - Windows Home - if they can't run this platform virtually. That means buggier software - great plan, MS!

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[sortius_nod]

before I say this, I am far from an M$ fan...

but to me, that makes great business sense - force developers to only develop for the top versions and you have the whole of the bottom end of the market in the palm of your hands.

while this more than likely isn't what M$ is doing, it's a neat way of looking at it. to me, this is just another way for M$ to keep vista in tech news. If they didn't pull this bullshit we wouldn't have heard a thing other than the usual murmurs of "vista sales slumping" that brings great delight to people like myself.

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[that this is not und]

while this more than likely isn't what M$ is doing, it's a neat way of looking at it.

That would be a truthful tagline for a lot of people here.

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[MoxFulder]

That's what I do... I virtualize XP with QEMU and KQEMU. Runs great. I have *exactly one* Windows application that I use, Quartus II, which is used to design and program Altera FPGAs. It's free as in beer, but you have to pay $$$ for the Linux version. I absolutely cannot bear to boot into Windows without quickly tearing my hair out at the lack of a decent command line, so virtualizing it is a pretty good alternative.

The only problem is that currently USB is verrry slow under QEMU: programming an FPGA over USB takes about 2 seconds in native windows, and about 2 minutes under QEMU. But I know that QEMU is hard at work on improving that particular feature :-)

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article

[the_lesser_gatsby]

Any serious Windows developer is going to have MSDN. The licensing is a lot more liberal.

Why bother?

[crhylove]

There is very little that I need to do that can not be done natively in Ubuntu, and for those not in the know, Ubuntu is completely free. So why would I bother buying/downloading ANY version of Windows and even bother installing it, either natively or as a virtual machine? I just don't get it.

Re:Why bother?

[l3mr]

For games, maybe?

Re:Why bother?

[carpe_noctem]

It seems that the only thing you can do on Ubuntu that you can't do on windows is troll slashdot...

Re:Why bother?

[crhylove]

Yes, but most games don't actually run well under virtualization. Or Wine for that matter.

There are however some AWESOME Linux native games:

Zsnes (every super nintendo game)
Mupen (every Nintendo 64 game)
Urban Terror (Linux Native!)

Other than those all I really miss is Grand theft Auto, which doesn't run well in virtualization anyway, and Civilization 2, which also doesn't run great virtualized, and further, is pretty damned old these days, though still more playable than civ 3 or 4.

Re:Why bother?

[pallmall1]

For games, maybe?

Get a console, maybe?

Re:Why bother?

[idesofmarch]

Your original statement was that you could not think of a reason run Windows native or virtualized. You have just given a reason why you would want to run Windows native - GTA and Civ 2. Now kindly please shut up.

Re:Why bother?

[arkhan_jg]

For the 'very little' you can't do natively in linux. Beats dual-booting.

In my case, I have a dell axim x51v. Beautiful VGA screen, but I need outlook & activesync to get data on and off it easily as its windows mobile 5.
I use linux on most of my servers, but there's still the odd desktop app that keeps me tied to windows. Virtualization allows me to run that handful of apps while stick to linux for my main desktop. In this role though, windows XP is more than adequate. Vista would be a complete waste of resources. Still, there will come a day when microsoft kill XP, via incompatibility or just end of patches.

Re:Why bother?

[l3mr]

Actually, a lot of games do run nicely virtualized, at least on my mac with parallels 3.0. Haven't tried gaming on linux for a while, but i guess with wine/cedega in addition to virtualization you should get most games to run...

Re:Why bother?

[Tony Hoyle]

Parallels is I believe the first to offer 3d accelerated virtual drivers. You can bet VMWare are working hard to be second.. xen will probably follow eventually on their pay versions (free versions have no windows acceleration, so it runs as slow as molasses anyway).

Within 3-4 years all this 'stuff doesn't work under virtualisation' will be ancient history - it's just going to take time for it to mature. We've just migrated all our servers to uber-powerful virtualisation boxes... if you spend 4 times as much on the hardware but can run 20 VMs on it at the same speed.. then you've gained (not to mention the decrease in power costs, the increase in available office space, decrease in noise level, etc.). One OS == One machine is history.

Re:Why bother?

[Kyojin]

See also:

Nexuiz (Quake 3 clone) http://alientrap.org/nexuiz/

Planeshift (Still in alpha stage, but it works) http://www.planeshift.it/

Also check the package list in Ubuntu etc.

If you're looking for games that work under Wine, look no further than World of Warcraft, Oblivion, and so forth.

Re:Why bother?

[Ash-Fox]

Microsoft Office

Microsoft Office XP installs out of the box when you doubleclick setup.exe in Ubuntu (Wine comes with Ubuntu). Microsoft Office 2003 requires you install a few things first because Microsoft didn't include it with the installer like they did for Office XP. Such as MSXML and a few other components.

The completely entirety of Adobe Creative Suite (that includes Photoshop).

I know the older versions work fine (alternatives to Photoshop though do exist, like Krita, which is closer to the Windows version of Photoshop and The Gimp, which is closer to the OS X version of Photoshop).

3DSMax

Apparently it doesn't run too well under wine, however there are alternatives like Maya (non-opensource alternative, just like you wanted) or Blender (once was closed-source software).

FL Studio

FL studio has gold ranking in the Wine application database, so no problems there.

Fine Reader

Not only have I never heard of that application, but nor has Wine's application database... A quick look on Google results show me a RSS reader... There are plenty good alternatives to those.

Disclaimer: I run Windows XP and have Ubuntu setup for Apache/PHP testing (production server on CentOS).

The fact you run only servers with Linux shows, it's quite apparent you have no knowledge on running those applications under Linux.

Re:Why bother?

[penix1]

One OS == One machine is history.

And therein lies the problem. Microsoft views virtualization as the road to rampant piracy and I can't blame them given their software validation model. It is all about money in the end. Besides, allowing virtualization in these EULA restricted products would raise all kinds of questions (as well as litigation) from those that paid more for it in the higher priced product.

On the other hand, I could be just talking out of my ass since I am only guessing.

B.

Re:Why bother?

[smittyoneeach]

Games?
Let me help with a possible translation.

threat of hypervisor malware

If we read this as:

threat of users employing a hypervisor as a man-in-the-middle to intercept traffic between the guest (Windows) and the host (Linux). Of course, this would be for the purposes of personal edification and private curiosity. Some discovery of the shenanigans employed to maintain the slaver^W"intellectual property" of the guest OS would be an unfortunate side-effect.

then the reason for the clanging sound of the sphincter trying to open, slamming shut, and then opening again may be more clear.

Re:Why bother?

[fistynuts]

FL studio has gold ranking in the Wine application database, so no problems there. With full ASIO support? From a quick search, it looks like it's not supported on Ubuntu. I (an I expect many others) couldn't use FL Studio without ASIO.

Re:Why bother?

[that this is not und]

and further, is pretty damned old these days,

You just finished saying that SNES and N64 emulators were AWESOME Linux native games!

Re:Why bother?

[unapersson]

Are you not aware of Ardour or did you just forget to mention it? It can do VST plugins.

Re:Why bother?

[ajs318]

I get the impression that the only thing keeping your 8-output sound card from working properly under Ubuntu is want of drivers. I'm not knocking you for sticking with Windows -- people have been forced to do worse things for flimsier reasons. But have you thought of at least contacting your elected representative, and requesting that it be made law for hardware details to be disclosed; thus enabling the creation of Open Source, third-party drivers?

I mean, you'd be pretty annoyed if the next version of Windows -- to which you were forced to upgrade for some unspecified reason -- didn't include drivers for your fine-up-till-now sound card. But that could happen, because hardware disclosure isn't enforced.

Please, take the time to knock out a letter, and post it -- second class, even, if you must -- to your MP. Point out the benefits that would result from mandatory disclosure (fairness to users of alternative OSes, prevents software-controlled obsolescence, right to make proper use of what you own, prevents mendacious claims wrt hardware capabilities [e.g. digital cameras' RAW formats, closely guarded by manufacturers, reveal the true pixel count -- which may be less than what is claimed in advertising], ultimately manufacturers sell more product), and why relying on voluntary disclosure is a bad idea (everyone is paranoid of their competitors).

BTW, I'm a Sky Plus customer (ex-Virgin Media, formerly NTL); and I view it more as paying to not be advertised at. It just takes a bit of discipline: 1. Change channel on time for start of programme (machine only records the station you are actually watching unless you have programmed a recording using Planner), 2. Do something else for 10 minutes or so (enough time to account for all advert breaks in show), 3. Rewind to start of programme, 4. Fast-forward through adverts, 5. If have got so far behind live broadcast due to rewinding and pausing that next show will start on a different channel before this one finishes, bring up now+next bar and set it to record, then at end of this programme go into Planner and start watching before recording has finished (yes, you can do that; why wouldn't you be able to? It's a disc FCOL!)

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it has ASIO support (you have to use jack, obviously). There appears to be trouble with input in version 7.0 but output apparently works just fine, since that release is less than a month old, I guess they just need time to fix the issues.

Re:Why bother?

[MyNameIsEarl]

Yes, but most games don't actually run well under virtualization. Or Wine for that matter. There are however some AWESOME Linux native games: Zsnes (every super nintendo game) Mupen (every Nintendo 64 game) Urban Terror (Linux Native!) Other than those all I really miss is Grand theft Auto, which doesn't run well in virtualization anyway, and Civilization 2, which also doesn't run great virtualized, and further, is pretty damned old these days, though still more playable than civ 3 or 4.

Wow I haven't heard anyone speak of Urban Terror in years. I loved that game. Was in a clan and everything. Oh just to be on topic, M$ suxors.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, no-one would ever want to use a computer for things that you don't do yourself on your little Ubuntu box...

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is very little that I need to do that can not be done natively in Ubuntu, and for those not in the know, Ubuntu is completely free. So why would I bother buying/downloading ANY version of Windows and even bother installing it, either natively or as a virtual machine? I just don't get it.

Because the rest of the world is not you, and may need to run Windows occasionally for those few apps they need that are Windows only.

Re:Why bother?

[MooUK]

Professional audio editing is something that linux can't quite manage - YET. A lot of people are working on that, though. If you look back in a year or so you might have most of what you need and be able to work round the remainder.

Re:Why bother?

[Millenniumman]

But have you thought of at least contacting your elected representative, and requesting that it be made law for hardware details to be disclosed; thus enabling the creation of Open Source, third-party drivers?...Please, take the time to knock out a letter, and post it -- second class, even, if you must -- to your MP. Point out the benefits that would result from mandatory disclosure (fairness to users of alternative OSes, prevents software-controlled obsolescence, right to make proper use of what you own, prevents mendacious claims wrt hardware capabilities [e.g. digital cameras' RAW formats, closely guarded by manufacturers, reveal the true pixel count -- which may be less than what is claimed in advertising], ultimately manufacturers sell more product), and why relying on voluntary disclosure is a bad idea (everyone is paranoid of their competitors). Uh, why not just ask the company making the hardware? You know, the ones who should have authority over that? Especially since very few people know or care about this issue, and that will reflect in a representative's actions.

Re:Why bother?

[hackstraw]

And therein lies the problem. Microsoft views virtualization as the road to rampant piracy and I can't blame them given their software validation model. It is all about money in the end.

First, when you are as wealthy as Microsft is, money is not a goal. Its power. Same with the *IAA people.

Virtualization is a blow to this power game. Microsoft was _very_ lucky in the beginning. Right place at the right time with the right deal with the right company. I mean, if I were to be teleported back to the late 70s to early 90s and tell me that this DOS thing would make someone to be the richest person in the world, I simply would not believe it. Without Microsoft's power games into preloading and freequently double billing their OSes on a vast majority of the computers in the world, their success simply would not be the same as it is today. Virtualization removes this preinstall/bundle "tax". It makes Microsoft just another software company like every other one, and that is not what they want.

Now, as an extention to this power thing. Why in 2007 are we still talkinga about EULAs? As far as I know, they are complete BS. There is no "agreement" in an End User License Agreement. Take a look at contract which implies agreement, more specifically, contractual terms. These "agreements" are thrown at people who may or may not even be of age to enter into an agreement. They are completely non-binding, and companies like Microsoft agrees so much to their end of the agreement that they change the EULA at will when they feel like it.

The day that I get some kind of merchantability out of a product and a 3rd party is present and I actually agree to a EULA with a signature not a forced "Click here to continue" is the day that I'll pay any attention to an EULA. Until then, I just consider them welfare for lawyers.

Re:Why bother?

[pebs]

Ubuntu, unlike ordinary Linux distros, uses Gnome as opposed to KDE (Fedora / Red Hat also uses Gnome, but they have tweaked it to look like KDE). And precisely because Ubuntu is easy enough for n00bs to use, you get n00bs using it. This in turn means that Ubuntu users comment like n00bs, because they are n00bs. Meanwhile, Debian users -- yes, Dorothy, there are people who use Debian for other purposes than basing a new distro on -- get the short end.

Saying it uses Gnome isn't a valid criticism. Some people actually *prefer* Gnome. I always try out KDE whenever there is a significant new release (looking forward to trying out 4.0), but always end up coming back to Gnome because I like it better. I have used KDE for long periods of time, and I like it and think it absolutely kicks ass, but there is just a few minor things that make me prefer Gnome. If anything I consider the two desktop environments equals. I can run KDE apps (even preloading the KDE libs if I want to), so what difference does it make?

In any case, you can always install KDE in Ubuntu, or use Kubuntu.

As for the noob Ubuntu users, I know what you're saying, but you'll find there are a lot of Ubuntu users who aren't noobs that are just a little less vocal about how good Ubuntu is (but still vocal). I've been using Linux since 1995, and my desktop distro of choice is Ubuntu at the moment (its always subject to change). Before Ubuntu I was using Debian unstable for several years. I'm just happy there is a Debian-based distro with a 6 month release cycle. The fact that they have made it easier to use is a bonus. I like my software to be easy to use and powerful. As a software developer, I have enough challenges that I don't need my OS to be challenging to use.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do i have to justify it to you? Why do you need to run linux? Why does any slashdotter do the various nefarious things he does with software?

I'm a hobbyist, just like you. I'm curious. I like to explore, and some things I can only do on Windows.

I appreciate that you like Ubuntu, that's great, but I might want to run Windows. Why? Because I want to. There's lots of software on Windows I can play with, although I do appreciate the reverse is also true. I think one of the best reasons to take up an evangelical stand for Linux is to preserve diversity in the software ecosystem, and single minded exclusionary elitist (though you're deluded if you think you're an elite minority for running Ubuntu..) posts like that don't really help.

It would be nice to see a discussion without the "BUT I CAN DO IT JUST AS GOOD ON LINUX!! LOOK!!" threads. How would you feel if I said, "but I can do all the stuff you're doing on Windows, and it came pre-installed with my PC!!"? It's just as valid.

  (btw i run CentOS and Ubuntu. Also Windows. I actually like Windows..)

Re:Why bother?

[SiChemist]

I play Civ 4 under Cedega. It runs just fine considering I do have a recently upgraded Mobo, processor, RAM and video card. The video card is a GeForce 7600GT (hardly state of the art), and the processor is an Athlon 64 X2 5600+ which is pretty fast. The game does crash on occasion, but I've heard that it crashes on Windows as well.

I have a few older games that I play under Cedega. When it works, it usually works pretty well.

Re:Why bother?

[CoughDropAddict]

Now, as an extention to this power thing. Why in 2007 are we still talkinga about EULAs? As far as I know, they are complete BS.

Unfortunately the enforceability of EULAs has been upheld in court; see ProCD v. Zeidenberg.

Re:Why bother?

[Ant P.]

Yes, but most games don't actually run well under virtualization. Or Wine for that matter.

And how is total emulation any better?

Re:Why bother?

[JazzLad]

Ya, Microsoft would like to sell you one of those too.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Fedora / Red Hat also uses Gnome, but they have tweaked it to look like KDE)

Shows you're full of shit and don't know what you are talking about. Fedora and Red Hat have both Gnome and KDE. The user has the choice of installing either. Why in Hades would someone tweak a desktop environment to look like another? when they could easily just include the proper full version?

Re:Why bother?

[PitaBred]

Two words: file dialog. As soon as Gnome fixes that bastardization, I'll consider looking at it again. But when it's still a pain in the ass to save files from Firefox, I don't even want to think about a full GTK based system.

Re:Why bother?

[Zantetsuken]

OpenArena is another good Quake3 clone - if I remember correctly, it's on the Fedora Core 6 repositories. A number of people in a webserver class I took played when the class wasn't doing anything...

Re:Why bother?

[crhylove]

That's crazy talk. Ardour is fantastic, and completely capable. I may still import a file here and there into protools for some random thing that isn't in Ardour, but I can do 90%+ of my tracking on a Linux machine, and if anything it seems MORE STABLE by a large margin than either Windows OR Mac.

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

So why would I bother buying/downloading ANY version of Windows and even bother installing it, either natively or as a virtual machine? I just don't get it.

There is no reason for you to bother. Ubuntu do things you need, and it's free.

Re:Why bother?

[vuffi_raa]

games are one of the best reasons for virtualisation- dos based text and adventure RPGs, TBS's, early RTS's- all awesome win 95 or less software

Re:Why bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess so. For some of us Computers are toys. For others its their work. Personally this is where I make my living and I can do anything I need to do with GNU/Linux or Solaris without ever needing a MS based product. I'm not talking about servers but everyday normal business tasks. Screw MS. In the business world you don't need them. Thats just crack your somking.

Since when is a license needed?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you believe that EULAs are enforcable.

Market Segmentation

[ZwJGR]

Artificially introduced market segmentation.

Seperate the user base by requirements. To match a low, medium and high priced product range, when there is no real difference between the actual products other than artificial restrictions.
By specifically disbaling certain features from the low versions, power users (the few who will touch Visat with a bargepole), will be forced to empty their bank accounts for the high version (Vista Ultimate/Business), otherwise they may just buy the version which could do everything they required (which would be cheaper).
Less revenue for Microsoft.

This is similar to the recent debate over MS Visual Studio Express vs. Professional. The former's EULA disallowing plugins of some variety which actually loaded fine. This forced users to buy the uncrippled version for actual development. More money to MS.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Rakishi]

Uhhmmm, your point? This is done by almost every company out there, including hardware companies (no, once the yields are good that low end cpu is no different from a high end one except for being factory clocked lower).

What do you prefer, that every copy cost more than the medium priced version does now? That people who can't afford the product not be able to buy one with only the features they USE for less?

Re:Market Segmentation

[und0]

What do you prefer, that every copy cost more than the medium priced version does now? That people who can't afford the product not be able to buy one with only the features they USE for less?

What part of "Artificially introduced market segmentation" you don't understand?

Re:Market Segmentation

[Sesostris III]

To be fair, this is a not-uncommon business practice that predates Microsoft.

And Microsoft aren't the only current practitioners either! (I note Oracle has something which is called a "Restricted Use" license).

Sesostris III

Re:Market Segmentation

[Rakishi]

What part of "Artificially introduced market segmentation" you don't understand? Uhhm, the part that you seem to find problematic? I mean please do tell us what your alternative is? After all I'm sure all the thousands of companies who do such things would love to know.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Ravnen]

What's artificial about it? Users have different requirements, and are willing to pay different amounts, so can naturally be grouped into different segments. Targeting different products at the different segments, with appropriate prices, will lead to greater economic efficiency. Any competent manager would use this approach where possible.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer that Microsoft lower the prices across the board. It's obvious from their earnings that the revenue gained from selling Windows and Office is grossly above the total development and distribution costs.

That's why Microsoft can continue shovelling money into black holes.
You're subsidizing the Zune.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Esion Modnar]

Remember the 486SX? I believe it was the same as the regular 486, except with the floating point math coprocessor disabled. I seem to recall that due to manufacturing defects, some chips came out with a broken math coprocessor, but everything else was fine. So these were dubbed SX and sold at a discount. (I'm still not sure if this is correct, about relabeling broken cpu's.)

Anyhow, Microsoft's not the only one to do this kind of stuff. Of course, they don't have the excuse Intel had.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent points, the post was submitted before engaging my brain. I stand corrected.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I'm sure getting tired of this "Uhm" shit when people reply. Do you think it gives your argument that extra push it needs? Are you trying to imply that the parent is batshit insane? OP didn't have a point, he explained why MS does this. Your "counter point" that almost every company does this is irrelevant. You are hyper defensive of MS, lay off the kool aid. Oh I guess you like confusing pricing schemes and product crippling to squeeze more out of the consumer, rather than just selling the premium product for a reasonable price. What a dumbass. Lemme guess, you're against frivolous lawsuits too? Unless of course its you doing the suing.

Re:Market Segmentation

[ZOmegaZ]

otherwise they may just buy the version which could do everything they required

Which I believe is called XP.

Re:Market Segmentation

[MoxFulder]

Uhhmmm, your point? This is done by almost every company out there, including hardware companies (no, once the yields are good that low end cpu is no different from a high end one except for being factory clocked lower).

Welll.... that's not quite true. Usually CPUs get tested for thermal stability at high frequencies, and then they get conservatively downrated. So a CPU that runs fine in factory testing at 2.3 GHz might get sold at 2.0 GHz, for example. However, *if* there is extra market demand for the lower-graded processors, *then* the manufacturer may artificially reduce some higher-performing CPUs. Usually this is the case, but you can't always rely on it.

What they do with mainframes is even crazier! If you buy a low-end IBM mainframe, they'll actually ship you the same hardware as the high-end version... but with most of its processing modules locked out by some DRM-ish firmware. If you then pay to upgrade, IBM sends you the activation codes and "presto" you have more hardware. Apparently this arrangement pleases most of the users, since it lowers costs for everyone involved. This is the reason that the draft GPLv3 only prevents "Tivoization" of *consumer* products, and not of *business-only* products, since those companies were very vocal about wanting to be locked out of their hardware. :-P

Personally, the idea of owning hardware that's capable of more than it actually lets me do makes me quite angry. I guess that's a big part of why I run Linux.

Re:Market Segmentation

[akypoon]

Yes, it is market segmentation and no, it is not artificial. Monopoly are price guessers because they don't know what the consumer demands are. In a non-monopoly market, businesses can gauge the demands and set prices accordingly by looking at how competitors behave. So naturally, monopoly suffers economical dead weight.

One common way for monopoly to reduce economical dead weight is to charge different prices for different market segments. e.g. Airlines sell economical and first class tickets. But for this to work, the monopoly must ensure that the products cannot be resold or transferred between the different segments. Product transfers have to go through the monopoly. Obviously, this market segmentation is failing in MS' case because the premise is not fulfilled (Vista activation crack).

It just show MS want to continue to behave like a monopoly.

Re:Market Segmentation

[MoxFulder]

That's right! And you could buy a 487 "coprocessor" for the 486SX, which would add floating point. But guess what? The 487 was just a 486DX with an extra pin to prevent it from being used as a (cheaper) 486DX!

Re:Market Segmentation

[und0]

We are talking about software here, you can create the final product out of thin air with practically no marginal cost, or so low it's negligible. Try this with a tangible product. Put in the mix a market monopoly, so price isn't the result of demand and offer.

Don't you find it an artificial market segmentation?

Re:Market Segmentation

[imikem]

Well put, but I just have to point out that you spelled "disballing" incorrectly.

Re:Market Segmentation

[Zaiff Urgulbunger]

It'd be nice if MS would simply say something to that effect, rather than the BS they currently spew about VMs being less secure, blah blah.

I think we all [mostly anyway] understand that MS is a commercial organisation that needs to make money somehow, so pricing products differently for separate customer bases does make sense. But the "not being allowed to run Vista Basic/Home on a VM" does seem an awful lot like desperately trying to hang on to a monopoly. And then, using BS about security to justify it... well, that's the reason MS are receiving flack here!

Re:Market Segmentation

[Rakishi]

See cpus for example of this not being just a software thing. My point isn't if this is an artificial market segmentation but why do you find this a bad thing or why a company wouldn't logically do it? I don't see how something can be a free market if companies are required to act against their own maximum profits because something is "Artificial."

Also its natural market segmentation in that there it exploits the landscape of the market to maximize profits, not everyone is the same after all.

Re:Market Segmentation

[jellomizer]

Putting RMS and GPL hiporicy aside. If you think of it this way. You paid for a tool that performs at this performance. You said to IBM or whater... I want hardware that performs at this speed and at this price. So that is what IBM Gave yo a product that works at that speed and that price. You got what you asked for. Now just because IBM didn't want to put the expense of producing different equiptment twice (slow speed chips and fast speed chips) they desided that they can save money by just making fast speed chips, and using firmware to slow them down. Just because the system has the potentional to go at a faster performance it shouldn't make you angry because you paid for a system to go at a slower speed and that is what you got. Now if you wanted a faster system upgrade you now get the benefit of just unlocking it via software at a difference in cost, saving you money for not having to buy faster system and selling your old system at a discount. IBM doesn't need to create new hardware and just ship an inexpensive CD. Both sides still win.

I know the idea that you own something that has the potentional to do more idologically is annoying but if you think about it in terms I bought what I wanted at the time and the fact it has more potentional then what I got is just an added extra.

Re:Market Segmentation

[MoxFulder]

I know the idea that you own something that has the potentional to do more idologically is annoying but if you think about it in terms I bought what I wanted at the time and the fact it has more potentional then what I got is just an added extra.

I agree! Don't get me wrong: IBM's strategy makes pretty good sense in terms of lowering costs for everyone involved. But my hacker soul is driven to rage by the thought of not being able to use my hardware fully. :-)

Re:Market Segmentation

[und0]

See cpus for example of this not being just a software thing. My point isn't if this is an artificial market segmentation but why do you find this a bad thing or why a company wouldn't logically do it? I don't see how something can be a free market if companies are required to act against their own maximum profits because something is "Artificial."

Well, first they aren't acting in a free market, they have a monopoly, and yes, a company will always try to maximize profits, so you can't have completely free market.

For CPUs, i'm not an expert but others have suggested that are thermally tested to be clocked at different speeds, anyway dumping isn't a recent invention...

DUPE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This was already mentioned yesterday: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/20/064324 1

Re:DUPE!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a different version of the article.

Re:DUPE!

[gbobeck]

Actually, it is more of a semi-dupe...

From the /. article you linked...

"...The announcement coincides with an embarrassing double-backflip: Microsoft had pre-briefed journalists that it was going to allow home users to run Vista basic and premium under virtual machines like VMWare, but it changed its mind at the last minute and pulled the announcement."

This article was only briefly mentioned (and linked), but wasn't the main focus ( which was "Microsoft pleading with consumers to use Vista") of the article.

Stoppit with the different versions!

[91degrees]

I've bought the software (note - this is a lie; there's no way I'm going to buy Vista any time soon). Microsoft has made their money. They should stop telling me how I can use it.

This is why I like free software. I'm treated as the owner.

Re:Stoppit with the different versions!

[Dogtanian]

Nice... thanks for letting us know.. a lie. I guess. [..] That's a lie, deducing from your first lie... Stop being a smartass. You know damn well that what he meant (and admittedly should have said) was "for the sake of argument, assume that".

Re:Stoppit with the different versions!

[James_Duncan8181]

I got a free copy for reporting a bug in beta. I agree with the GP. Also funnily enough, the copy runs in VMWare on occasion for web testing.

Re:Stoppit with the different versions!

[Opportunist]

Well, not an owner (as the owner of some property I may do with it as I see fit, usually), but at least as a customer. Funny enough that you get treated more like a valued customer by a "company" that doesn't sell you their product but rather give it to you for free than by a company that you pay for the "service".

I think a few old proverbs need rewriting.

Re:Stoppit with the different versions!

[MoxFulder]

They should stop telling me how I can use it.

Is there any real case law on the enforceability of the Microsoft EULA? According to Wikipedia, most courts have found shrinkwrap licenses not to be valid or enforceable.

How many people are actually going to be stopped from virtualizing Vista by the EULA?

Price Tag

[Evil Cretin]

Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware? When it makes people switch to Linux.

Re:Price Tag

[sqldr]

Quite. It also connects to the "OS is part of the hardware" philosophy of Microsoft. If you buy a new PC with windows on it, they see it as just that. I bought one, installed KVM, then tried to install my OEM on it, and guess what, they wouldn't license it. They're happy for me to pay for the software, but if it involves interoperating with linux, they don't want anything to do with it.

No kidding.

[jimicus]

"Something else must be going on here". No shit sherlock.

The thing that's going on is market segmentation. To put it briefly: Microsoft reckons that those customers who are likely to want to run Vista in a virtual environment have got the money to buy a more expensive version. It's the exact same principle as is used for pricing some commercial databases according to "number of CPUs in the system which is going to be running it" - anyone who's got the money to buy and the need to run a 16-processor system can probably afford to spend more on the database, regardless of whether there's any technical difference between the 16 processor version and the 8 processor version of the software.

Re:No kidding.

[suv4x4]

"Something else must be going on here". No shit sherlock.

The thing that's going on is market segmentation [wikipedia.org]. To put it briefly: Microsoft reckons that those customers who are likely to want to run Vista in a virtual environment have got the money to buy a more expensive version.

If it was that simple, Microsoft wouldn't conflict itself so much. There are many more things going on, not the least of which, is the virtualization on the Mac (not a core Mac user myself).

Mac+OSX has still many disadvantages on its own, the biggest of which is vendor support for software and games. Parallels integrates relatively seamlessly virtualized Windows into a Mac.

Under virtualization, you really don't need more than Vista Home, since you can't run Aero anyway, so people would naturally flock to that. Many PC owners are willing to switch to Mac today, as long as they have a seamless Windows experience, which they still need.

Microsoft isn't just trying to make a buck, they're trying to decrease the rate of Vista/Windows virtualization. The problem here is: they can't change the license of XP which is out there already and people run that on their Macs.

So the conflict (at least part of it) is: forbid virtualization on cheap Vista (and thus stiffle Vista adoption as people run their XP on Macs), or allow virtualization since XP already allows virtualization anyway.

And only after all those strategy issues are resolved, comes the question if Microsoft could make more buck with expensive virtualizable Vista: corporate customers usually need to virtualize Windows for testing. But they don't really need a ton of copies for that purpose. A 1000 employee company may need just 5-6 licenses for the 5-6 developers who specifically need to do testing of their software. Hence the buck making potential isn't really quite there.

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Under virtualization, you really don't need more than Vista Home, since you can't run Aero anyway, so people would naturally flock to that. Many PC owners are willing to switch to Mac today, as long as they have a seamless Windows experience, which they still need.

Microsoft isn't just trying to make a buck, they're trying to decrease the rate of Vista/Windows virtualization. The problem here is: they can't change the license of XP which is out there already and people run that on their Macs.

So the conflict (at least part of it) is: forbid virtualization on cheap Vista (and thus stiffle Vista adoption as people run their XP on Macs), or allow virtualization since XP already allows virtualization anyway.

Again, why? Microsoft is not a hardware company. They're a software company. Running Windows in a VM theoretically results in the same thing as running Windows straight up; a purchase of a windows license and use of a Microsoft product (for whatever reason).

Re:No kidding.

[proverbialcow]

Microsoft isn't just trying to make a buck, they're trying to decrease the rate of Vista/Windows virtualization.

My bet is they're doing so to protect the interests of OEMs, who purchase Windows licenses in bulk and bring in the capital-dollar-sign money to Microsoft. If it came down to buying a comparable Dell with Vista Home Premium pre-installed or buying a Mac Mini and shelling out $250 for Parallels and Vista Home Basic, I'd choose the latter and gladly pay the price difference for the extra utility. As you mentioned, Parallels almost seamlessly integrates Windows programs to the desktop now - who gives a rip about Aero?

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, why? Microsoft is not a hardware company. They're a software company. Running Windows in a VM theoretically results in the same thing as running Windows straight up; a purchase of a windows license and use of a Microsoft product (for whatever reason).

The computer has nothing to do with it. It's OSX.

You're tihnking in very short terms. Consider the long term effects. Mac market share increasing, vendors supporting Mac, Windows losing lock-in, Windows being abandoned.

Re:No kidding.

[MoxFulder]

Ah, Mac fanboys... you never cease to amaze me. You protest loudly about how Microsoft makes it hard to run Windows on a Mac. What about the fact that Apple makes it illegal to run OSX on your Dell???

The barrier is just as artificial. An Intel Mac is no different from a modern PC, except that Apple has added some hardware detection to the OS so that it won't run on non-Apple hardware. Of course, this hasn't stopped enterprising hackers from figuring out ways around it.

Apple and Microsoft are both producing proprietary software and trying to force hardware lock-in as well when it suits them. Actually, Apple's hardware lock-in is much worse.

Not to mention that the Mac Mini is an underpowered piece of crap. Why would I pay $600 for a mini when I can get a much more powerful mini-PC, or a fully loaded desktop with monitor, for that price??? But I digress...

Re:No kidding.

[jay2003]

The odd part if that MS is ensuring both they get this revenue from me in the long run and I use Windows less by preventing Vista virtualization. With virtualization, I'll shell out for a copy of Windows every time I buy a Mac . The ability to run Windows in Parallels isn't worth a $400 copy Ultimate to me. Since this option is not available, I'll buy XP for the moment. When the XP option goes away, if I still really need to run a Windows apps, I'll shell out $400 for a POS Dell every 10 years or so of which Microsoft gets around $40 and I will hardly ever use it.

Those Windows licenses I buy for my Macs are much better return to Microsoft. They cost $90 at cost and Newegg's margins are probably pretty thin so would not be surprised if Microsoft get $65 out that deal. The licenses for the Mac would also be much more frequent.

I'm not surprised at Microsoft's stupidity on this issue. They are afraid that real competition is emerging and they think they can go back to good days where the Mac was a 3% platform with little prospect for growth and Linux as only used by hard-core geeks by using continuing to use Windows as wedge. This strategy hardly ever works by that never seems to stop a bunch of dumb scared VPs from insisting on it.

Re:No kidding.

[proverbialcow]

Ah, Mac fanboys... you never cease to amaze me.

If that was directed at me, please realize that I'm writing this on my laptop, which runs XP and Ubuntu. While I am aware that Apple makes it illegal to install OSX on this machine, it doesn't much concern me as I don't have that kind of time. Because, as you've mentioned, the hardware lock-in can be worked around, and while I would have no compunction about employing those workarounds despite the license, I would then have to spend countless hours getting the hardware to work correctly once OSX did boot.

To wit: this laptop was purchased in early January with a free update to Vista Home Premium, which I ignored for similar reasons. XP works fine. After a modicum of effort, Ubuntu worked fine. My machine runs a Windows variant and a *nix; that's about all I need.

You protest loudly about how Microsoft makes it hard to run Windows on a Mac.

When did I do that? I was offering up what I think to be a reasonable explanation for Microsoft wavering on the virtualization issue.

Actually, Apple's hardware lock-in is much worse.

Agreed, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts as to why.

Not to mention that the Mac Mini is an underpowered piece of crap. Why would I pay $600 for a mini when I can get a much more powerful mini-PC...

I agree - the Mac Mini is underpowered, but $600 won't buy you anything close to fully-loaded with options a Mini won't have, and this laptop I bought to tide me over while waiting for Leopard to come pre-installed has pretty similar specs to a Mini for roughly the same price.

I have no idea why you'd pay $600 for it, but I know why I would - because I don't need the latest and greatest bleeding-edge, still-paying-off-R&D-with-retail-sales technology; I want something that works and that I can configure to my liking in under two hours. For me a computer is a tool and an important one, but less powerful and less important than money or time, and only truly useful when it can save me both. I don't need a MacBook Pro, a Mini will suffice. If I'm going to wind up replacing a computer every two years, I'd rather spend on of ease of use and not pay for processor- and bus-cycles I'll never even notice, contenting myself with what I have and not have to succumb to techno-envy two months after I've shelled out for what was top-of-the-line. That I'd consume less electricity is an added bonus.

Re:No kidding.

[suv4x4]

With virtualization, I'll shell out for a copy of Windows every time I buy a Mac

Uhm, dude, how *often* do you buy a Mac. It sounds almost as if you buy a Mac every few days or so. And to think that Mac users are making fun of us for having to restart or reinstall Windows.

When you buy one Windows license, and you have that sudden urge to buy a Mac this morning, you just deactivate the copy and move it to your new Mac. As simple as that.

Re:No kidding.

[jay2003]

Say I buy a Mac every three years. That's a lot more often than the 5 year old PC I kept around pre-Intel Macs for the occasional Windows use. If I have to have a whole another machine for Windows, I will literally only replace it once every 10 years or so. And considering the revenue is lot better on the Mac copies than the OEM price from Dell, it's a significant loss.

If I bought a retail version, I could transfer if it MS would let me. Regardless of what the license says, the activation process makes it easy for MS to thwart future transfers. Thus I've stuck OEM licenses since I don't trust being able to transfer retail ones indefinitely. Do you think MS will keep letting transfer once they discontinue support for XP?

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

If I bought a retail version, I could transfer if it MS would let me. Regardless of what the license says, the activation process makes it easy for MS to thwart future transfers. Thus I've stuck OEM licenses since I don't trust being able to transfer retail ones indefinitely. Do you think MS will keep letting transfer once they discontinue support for XP?

So you keep buying OEM's and throw them away since Microsoft will maybe possibly not let you, you think, one day, transfer your retail license.

Solid logic.

That's the same reason I wouldn't buy a Mac. I have this constant fear Steve Jobs will put a bomb in my Mac one of those days, since I flame Mac too much on these forums, and this hurts his company share value. So I prefer to be on the safe, rather than be bombed by Steve Jobs.

Re:No kidding.

[jay2003]

No, what I said is that I don't trust Microsoft to transfer a RETAIL licenses multiple times. I buy OEM because of this.

Mac OS does not require an activation key so I can run and version till the end of time or as long as I can find hardware from it. Yes, I have to run it on Apple hardware but that is not a restriction that matters to me. If it matters to you, I really don't care. Stick with Windows and enjoy it. The Mac is not religion to me so I don't care what you do.

Re:No kidding.

[Anonymous Coward]

OSX has still many disadvantages on its own, the biggest of which is vendor support for software

What software? Seems there are many more applications for OS X than for Windows, and it would stand to reason that the companies making the software support their users.

Hmmm

[El Lobo]

It's their product, so they do what they want. So do you and I with our products and nobody cares.

Re:Hmmm

[Opportunist]

Personally, I am more inclined to the creed of being free to do what you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's freedom.

I know that this world is going more towards "forbid everything but the bare essentials someone needs to be good for the company and country", but that attitude is behind everything that was wrong in this part of the world about 70 years ago.

Greetings to Godwin, btw.

Re:Hmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I am more inclined to the creed of being free to do what you want as long as you don't interfere with someone else's freedom.

Well MS is certainly "free" to add restrictions to its own product, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. And when those restrictions make life more difficult for the rest of us, we're "free" to complain as loudly as we like.

Re:Hmmm

[howlingmadhowie]

that's the point. you can complain about it, but until microsoft opens up doc format etc. etc. all you can do is complain. many people can't actually take their business elsewhere because they're stuck. so what use is complaining if you have to buy their products anyway?

Re:Hmmm

[zrq]

... so what use is complaining if you have to buy their products anyway?

I don't think anyone has to. There are a few specialist applications that are only available for Microsoft Windows, but even then, more and more of these are either being ported or replaced.

The change won't happen overnight, but gradually more and more people are installing alternatives, Mac or Ubuntu on the desktop/laptop and Unix or Linux on servers. When I meet someone who is having problems with the restrictions in Windows or Microsoft Office, I point them to the OpenSource alternatives.

As more and more people start to use the alternative tools, more and more documents will be available in the free (as in speech) formats.

I work on an international project, collaborating with scientists and developers from all over the world. When I write a document and publish it on our project wiki, I no longer bother to supply a Word .doc version. The document itself is published as an OpenOffice document, and I provide a PDF version for people who don't have OpenOffice. I have never been asked to supply a Word version.

It won't happen over night, but in a few years time (I hope) it will be the norm to email or publish documents in one of the open formats, and gradually the requirement to use Microsoft Office "because everyone else does" will deminish. At which point, schools, universities, businesses and ordinary users will be free to choose which software they use based on how well it does the job.

Of course, it might not turn out this way, and Microsoft will (understandably) try everything they can to protect their current position. So it is upto us to keep watching for tricks, FUD, underhand lobbying and dodgy patent agreements to make sure things turn out alright in the end.

because

[antifoidulus]

Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware?

Well, it does mean that there are only 5 potential victims for your malware :P

Losing their platform

[sucker_muts]

The reason Microsoft wants to keep the cost high to virtualize Vista is because they want people to actually run Vista as the main os. When lots of people start running linux (or parallels on macs), they are using Vista simply as a bunch of libraries to run one or two apps.

They want to remain in control of the platform, if people use mac or linux as their main os and use Windows to run one of those not-yet-supported programs the power of Microsoft wil start to degrade...

Re:Losing their platform

[Keeper Of Keys]

"...the power of Microsoft will start to degrade"

Too late for that. The word is out that "the new version of Windows" (many people still seem not to know its name) is not as good as XP, and understanding is growing that OSX and Ubuntu are better alternatives, apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).

As pointed out already, visrutalization [I know I mistyped it, but it looks interesting so I'm leaving it] is a partial solution, but whatever feeble steps Microsoft take to stem that, momentum is buildng for the alternatives. At some point, perhaps quite soon, it will be worthwhile for many more software vendors to release Mac (and possibly Linux) versions of their products, much as in recent years it has become essential for web devlopers to support standards, due to the decline in popularity of IE (unless they work for Yahoo).

In short, the decline of Windows is already well underway.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ash-Fox]

Too late for that. The word is out that "the new version of Windows" (many people still seem not to know its name) is not as good as XP, and understanding is growing that OSX and Ubuntu are better alternatives, apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).

I remember when the ''The word is out that "the new version of Windows" is not as good as'' 98.

So no, I don't think it's too late.

Re:Losing their platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft are already losing their stranglehold on the market; they're fighting against desktop linux, fighting a rear guard action against open standards and OEM's are looking to escape per machine licensing. Releasing so many versions of Vista was really a dumb move and DRM simply isn't going to work when the OS is run as a VM guest.

My guess is that they're stalling for time while getting a TPM savvy hypervisor in boot ROM. Antitrust authorities wouldn't be amused by this, hence the handwaving about malware.

What many commentators miss is that you're free to install your one copy of Vista in a VM, Microsoft can't stop you from doing that. The EULA (poorly worded as it is) only restricts (or permits) running multiple virtualized copies from the one license.

Re:Losing their platform

[Keeper Of Keys]

If you're talking about Windows Me, then the word was right. Difference is, Win2000 and then XP both came out in quick succession, within 2 years of that disaster. Vista has been 5+ years in development, is palpably worse than XP (I know; I'm using it right now), and they have no other OS on the horizon that I know of. If MS produce a Vista killer within the next year or two I will eat both my words and my hat.

Re:Losing their platform

[Corporate Troll]

Whoa, there.... Get back to the real world. Just last monday, I was talking to a guy that was going to demo some software in a VM that I was worried about the licenses and that I'd rather run the DB part on Linux so that at least that part would be licensed properly. His reply: Are you crazy? Customers want to see Windows, it's all they know.

Ooookay..... was my reaction. I've become too old to be a fanboi. Five years ago, I probably would have started an argument.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME.

A lot of people ranting about how Vista isn't as good as XP are probably the same ones who were ranting about how XP wasn't as good as 2000. In reality, XP was better than 2000, and has almost completely replaced it now. Vista is better than XP, and in a few years will probably have largely displaced it too.

Re:Losing their platform

[fbjon]

They may just end up doing that, though. I can't see how it would take them very long, if it was needed, since they spent so much time bashing the Vista codebase. I.e. it doesn't have to be "new" as in 98->2K, but rather like 2K->XP. Or maybe XP->2K, actually.

Re:Losing their platform

[Keeper Of Keys]

I am not a Linux or Mac fanboi. I have been using Windows exclusively for the past 8 years or so. My problem with Vista used to be the DRM. Then I bought a laptop with it pre-installed. Now I don't think about that; my complaint is with the general slowness, even with all the fancy interface stuff turned off. 2 hours to unzip a file that WinRAR handled in a couple of minutes? Several minutes to move files from one place on the same hard disk to another? I encounter that kind of thing every day.

It's not the hardware, either. Ubuntu (which I am trying to migrate towards) is lightning fast on the same machine.

Plus the general user is going to continually fall over permissions issues. Sometime I am refused permission to move a folder from one place in my Documents folder to another.

Of course, eventally these things will be ironed out, but by then it may be too late. Competition is much stiffer now.

Re:Losing their platform

[Corporate Troll]

I was one of the people ranting that Win2000 was better than WinXP. The only thing I have found in a home environment that makes WinXP better than Win2000 is the welcome screen and that multiple users can be logged in at once. That was the reason I went to WinXP. There are some other nifty things like remote desktop and so, but they hardly matter for Joe Home User. The difference between Win2000 vs. WinXP and WinXP vs. WinVista is that a machine that ran Win2000 just fine, usually had no problems with WinXP. WinXP didn't need a fancy graphics card, nor did it require a very strong CPU, it just required memory, lots of it, especially after SP2.

Case in point: my former laptop was a P-III 600MHz/512Meg. When I bought it (second hand) it only featured 256Meg RAM and ran Windows 2000 without a hitch. I have run WinXP without service pack on similar machines without a problem. SP2 upped the requirements a bit and was slow (but still acceptable with 256Meg), so I added another 256Meg which made it run like a champ for anything I had to do at the time. Do you even imaging running Vista on it? I doubt it, yet, it runs WinXP SP2 just fine!

Heck, the laptop that replaced it is an AMD Turion X2 TL-50/1Gig laptop and it rated a mere "Vista Capable". That laptop was bought in January (on sale, I admit) You can't tell me that it isn't a modern machine. It is, but it lacks the graphics oompha to be Vista Approved (or whatever they call it)

That's the difference.... WinXP ran on Win2000 hardware with minor upgrades. WinVista versus WinXP is a whole other tale.

Re:Losing their platform

[Opportunist]

Well, can you keep a straight face and tell me WinME was better than 98? Fortunately for MS 2k was out and it was (unlike NT4.0) something the home user could actually take to play his games, else they'd be pretty much in the boat they are now.

Unlike with ME, they now have no fallback system (well, there's XP but they want to move people away from that, so I don't give that fallback option any chance), there is a very quickly growing Mac community, with "ordinary" people catching on and opting for Macs instead, and there are Linux distributions that come pretty close to Windows in usability and user friendlyness, and non-geeks are starting to take a peek.

I wouldn't say we're on even grounds with the ME desaster. This has the potential to be far, far worse. Or better. Depending whether you're on MSs side or not.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

Well, I'm running Vista on a machine that used to run XP, and I don't notice any performance problems. A comparison by Tom's Hardware also shows that Vista performs reasonably well compared to XP (a bit slower for some tasks, a bit faster for others), except for OpenGL applications. If you use OpenGL, you'll have to download the appropriate drivers from your video card vendor.

One very important point is that Vista does have much higher RAM requirements than XP, so if you have only enough RAM for XP to run well, Vista won't run well, and you'll have to add more. RAM is cheap, so if you're going to go and buy Vista, it would be silly not to buy some extra RAM at the same time.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

What you're describing might be mostly an issue of upgrading one generation of the OS versus two. I'm sure there were some Windows 98/NT4 PCs that could handle Windows 2000, but not XP.

I don't know how the Vista logo thing works. My PC well exceeds the specs for the 'Vista Premium Ready' logo listed on the Microsoft website, but the logo on it says 'Vista Capable'. It runs Vista Ultimate perfectly well, and is rated highly by the Vista Experience Index. My only guess is that vendors can decide whether or not to have specific PCs validated for the 'Vista Premium Ready' logo, but not having that logo doesn't mean a PC can't run Vista with all of the graphical features perfectly well.

Re:Losing their platform

[stewbacca]

apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).

Maybe this is why I'm a happy Mac user. Add VLC media player to your list of cross-platform apps, and I really don't need anything else out of a computer. I would venture to think that there are many more just like me too. Throw in the free iLife suite and GarageBand and I have more computer than I've ever needed.

Re:Losing their platform

[Keeper Of Keys]

The problem isn't running apps - in fact Office 2007 runs much MUCH better on Vista than on the last Xp machine I used where it was a total dog - it's core OS operations, which don't seem to have been included in those tests. Anyone seen benchmarks for speed of file copying, etc?

Re:Losing their platform

[Dan Ost]

What many commentators miss is that you're free to install your one copy of Vista in a VM, Microsoft can't stop you from doing that. The EULA (poorly worded as it is) only restricts (or permits) running multiple virtualized copies from the one license.

Can anyone corroborate this?

Or, even better, is the EULA available online somewhere where I could verify this statement for myself?

Re:Losing their platform

[Corporate Troll]

I'm sure there were some Windows 98/NT4 PCs that could handle Windows 2000, but not XP.

Yes, and just adding a RAM stick made them immediately capable of running XP fine. A minor upgrade....

My PC well exceeds the specs for the 'Vista Premium Ready' logo listed on the Microsoft website, but the logo on it says 'Vista Capable'.

So does mine.... (I think) Especially since I upped the RAM to 2Gig. The ATI X1100 can run some games, but I doubt that it will run Aero at all. Beryl doesn't... I know that when I read the fine print on the "Vista Capable" sticker on the box of my machine it stated as much as "Sure, put Vista on it, but you ain't gonna get you're money's worth". I mean, a 6 month old machine and you get stuff like that? You have to compare Win2000 vs WinXP at the time.... A brand new computer just before the release of Windows XP could run Windows XP *full featured*, even if it came with Win2000.

With Vista, you plain don't know....

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

Do you mean the performance of the OS itself, or of Explorer? Applications tend to use a lot of core OS functions in their normal operation, but would not of course invoke Explorer. As an example, Word uses file operations quite extensively to manage temporary files, backup files and so on, so if these were slower at the OS level, one would expect Word to be slower. The I/O prioritisation scheme in Vista should, if anything, improve I/O performance.

Re:Losing their platform

[Keeper Of Keys]

This I/O Prioritization Scheme is a new one on me. Can it be tweaked?

I think my main point is that *on the same machine* Ubuntu is glaringly quicker than Vista. I want to switch permanently but need a bunch of windows-only apps for my work. If I was braver I'd wipe Vista totally and run XP under Xen or something.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

Yes, and just adding a RAM stick made them immediately capable of running XP fine. A minor upgrade....

This is arguably the same for Vista, with the exception of Aero, and of potentially missing drivers, which was also certainly a problem for upgrading from 98 or even NT4 to 2000. If you upgrade the RAM, any machine that can run XP well can probably run Vista with Aero turned off. Aero is GPU-intensive, so it should be no surprise that if you want to use it on an old machine, you may have to upgrade the GPU.

Re:Losing their platform

[Corporate Troll]

Except that I don't call a graphics card upgrade an "easy upgrade". Do not forget: a graphics card upgrade requires you to install new drivers (and preferably not forget to deinstall the current drivers before installing the new graphics card). Compare this to a RAM upgrade, it simply is plug-in and be done. Replacing the graphics card is infinitely harder. I know, I walked someone (a non-tech woman) through on the phone for a RAM upgrade. I wouldn't dare to do that for a graphics card update. Also, laptops are out: upgrading the RAM in a laptop is possible, upgrading the graphics card? I don't think so.

For the end-user Aero *is* Vista. I know there are more features, but they aren't as visible as Areo. If I get Vista, I need Aero to work from the point of view of Joe Blow, of course.

As for missing drivers in the Win2000 vs WinXP switch. Highly unlikely for internal devices (and I don't expect this to happen with WinVista to be fair!), I know some scanners and printers lost support (mainly parallel scanners). Internal devices usually were just fine. Now, I don't expect the P-III 600MHz to run on Vista or even have drivers, but for my new laptop drivers should be available. However, that is to blame on the manufacturer... not on Microsoft. (I know, I know, in Linux we blame it on Linux, but the Windows world is upside down)

Fact is: with a computer bought in the course of last year you have no guarantee that you will be able to run a *full-featured* Windows Vista. In the days of the Win2000 to WinXP migration, you had that guarantee. A mid-range machine bought in 2000, would run Windows XP almost certainly at the release date of XP (meaning, that it didn't have SP2, which upped the requirements....)

Re:Losing their platform

[MoxFulder]

They want to remain in control of the platform, if people use mac or linux as their main os and use Windows to run one of those not-yet-supported programs the power of Microsoft wil start to degrade...

That's how I use Windows these days, to run one and exactly one app. I use QEMU to run virtualized XP so that I can use Altera Quartus II to design, debug, and program FPGAs. It's one of those highly specialized, complicated programs, and they offer a free-as-in-beer Windows version, but the Linux version costs $$$. I can't stand to run Windows natively, since I go crazy with the lack of a high-powered command-line and no apt-get. Windows sure is a crappy development environment unless you shell out for Visual Studio, and even then I prefer what Linux offers.

If they begin to offer a free-as-in-beer Linux version, I'll jump ship in the blink of an eye, and banish XP from my computer entirely. Altera's main competitor, Xilinx, already offers a free-as-in-beer version of their design software.

Microsoft should be afraid, very very afraid. Linux distros like Ubuntu already offer a full-featured, secure, and stable suite of programs for basic productivity, database work, internet access, multimedia, and development. The number of Windows-only apps is fading fast.

Re:Losing their platform

[mashade]

Seems pretty clear to me:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system
That's from the Vista Home Basic EULA. Here.
It's a PDF, but I've linked to the Google 'View as HTML' option.

Re:Losing their platform

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the onerous clause:

You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

The entire concept of a "licensed device" vanishes when we're discussing only a VM image. Such EULA language is a hold over from the "license dies with the machine" landscape that virtulization is demolishing. Additionally, all modern x86 processors are RISC cores with decoders that allow them to emulate complex x86 CISC instructions.

I have a gut feeling that the wording is deliberately vague because no consensus on strategy could be reached within Microsoft.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ant P.]

Is there any reason why someone would want to pay for a licence to virtualise windows on Linux instead of just using Wine? I mean, if they've got a copy of windows they can just load native DLLs into Wine for anything that doesn't work.

Re:Losing their platform

[MoxFulder]

RAM is cheap, so if you're going to go and buy Vista, it would be silly not to buy some extra RAM at the same time.

RAM is not that cheap. It'd cost me $100 to upgrade from 1 GiB to 2 GiB on my desktop. Why should I? Ubuntu runs just great with 1gb, or even 512mb for that matter. XP is also fine with 1gb.

I just don't see many people upgrading to Vista other than when they buy new computers. It's expensive to buy the software and expensive to buy RAM upgrades.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ravnen]

Yes, the XP to Vista upgrade is more like the 98 to 2000 or 98 to XP upgrade than the 2000 to XP upgrade. 2000 to XP was, after all, only an upgrade from NT 5.0 to NT 5.1, and there was only about a year and a half between the releases. Upgrading from Windows 98 (Windows 4.1) to Windows 2000 or Windows XP was an entirely different matter, and at least as difficult as upgrading from XP to Vista. Vista is, after all, NT 6.0, a major version increment.

In the worst case (for Microsoft), Vista might turn out to be another Windows 2000, which many Windows 98 users avoided because of the higher resource requirements, missing drivers and so on. However, even in this case, there is no reason to expect that drivers won't eventually arrive, as they did on 2000. If NT 6.0 (Vista) doesn't fully replace 5.1, maybe 6.1 will be the one that does it. The most important difference between Windows 2000 and Windows XP was, after all, device driver and application compatibility.

As for Vista being Aero, I'd say that's true to some extent for those who are paying for a retail upgrade. To those who are buying a new PC, however, this is not necessarily the case. Vista Home Basic, which has no support for Aero, is unlikely to put higher demands on a system than XP with SP2, except perhaps for RAM, and any system bundled with Vista will obviously include device drivers for the included hardware.

Re:Losing their platform

[MoxFulder]

The ATI X1100 can run some games, but I doubt that it will run Aero at all.

Is this a Dell Inspiron 1501? I got one a few weeks ago, Turion 64 X2 TL-60 with 1gb RAM, Radeon Xpress 1100. Runs Vista with Aero fine. Except Aero drives me crazy, so I turned it off right away. And I run Ubuntu 90% of the time anyway :-)

Re:Losing their platform

[Corporate Troll]

Nah, Fujitsu Siemens Amilo Pa1510. It might be technically the same machine (you never know with laptops...), but it was on sale and I needed a new laptop. I'm sure it runs fine, but the sticker said "Capable", which means that to Joe Blow User, there is doubt that it would run. The thing runs Half life 2, so why wouldn't it run Aero?

However, I'm pretty sure that I'll lose speed upon installing Vista compared to XP at least. That's my main gripe with Vista: it requires a lot of hardware for minor features and costs a lot of money.

I also have Ubuntu on it and it works fine. Beryl doesn't work though. Eventually, I'll migrate to Debian. At least that's the plan.

Re:Losing their platform

[MoxFulder]

Yeah, that laptop is uncannily similar... yours has Firewire and S-Video ports, otherwise identical it seems. I wouldn't run Vista except that it came with the computer and I was too lazy to install XP. As I've said above, I only use it for one specific app.

Re:Losing their platform

[Anonymous Coward]

Sandboxing and COW disk images which can be stuck on a USB drive or file server.

Re:Losing their platform

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been hearing about the 'decline of Windows' for years now. Heck, I'm only 24, and I'm already sick of it...

I ran Linux for the first time when I was 14, it's been *ten years*. For ten years now, I've been coming to websites and reading about how Windows sucks and how it's falling apart and now the newest Windows OS is a flop and how Microsoft is an Evil Monopoly.

I wonder, is it the same people, who CONSTANTLY predict the fall of MS? If so, do you ever stop and say 'Gee, maybe I was a little...over dramatic 10 years ago...?'. Or maybe, there is just a constant influx of new people to call upon the fall of Windows? really, I'm not sure.

I'm not saying other OS'es haven't come along way since I was 14; but I'm just sick of hearing the same old tired crap. Here's exactly what I mean - some article from 1998 blabbing about how great Linux is going to be: http://www.ties.org/deven/predictions.html

At the time, PLENTY of people would have agreed, especially the typical slashdot'ers. And yet, here we are, Windows is still the desktop king, MS is still going strong, and people are still predicting the fall. At what point can I finally say 'Haha! See, you were wrong?'. If I bookmark this comment, how many years do I have to wait until I can come back and say 'See, you were wrong?'

Of course, in 10 years, nobody will care about this (hell, in a week, nobody will care about this) and if I were to post a link to it into a new 'MS IS GONNA FALL' thread - everyone would say 'Umm, but it's 10 years old; and MS is REALLY going to fall this time...because of ______ and ______.'

Re:Losing their platform

[Zantetsuken]

I agree - for example my Compaq laptop which I bought about a year and a half ago only has 1 slot for RAM, having came with the stock 512MB, I've already upgraded to 1GB (1.25 if you count shared video memory). So even if I had the cash to go out and buy more RAM right now, since it only has 1 slot, money isn't the issue - space limitations come into play also...

Re:Losing their platform

[trenobus]

Repeating my comment from a related article yesterday:

Virtualisation is a double-edged sword for Microsoft. On the one hand, they surely must fear it, probably even more than Vista falling flat on its face. Virtualisation is the most profound threat to their monopoly that they have ever faced. Virtualisation opens the doors for competition in operating systems, and the possibility for real innovation in a field that has stagnated for at least two decades. The tipping point is device drivers. If a (non-Microsoft) Virtual Machine Monitor becomes popular enough that device vendors find it advantageous to develop (or make it possible to develop) drivers at the VMM level instead of for Windows, then Windows becomes the walking dead.

On the other hand, virtualisation can potentially free Microsoft from years of subservience to backwards compatibility. Applications could run happily in "Windows compatibility mode", and Microsoft would once again be free to "innovate" (probably by copying Apple again). Naturally this works best if Microsoft actually has a monopoly on the VMM, which they can be expected to pursue with all vigor in the next few years. That is a battle that the open source community should be more concerned about than Windows vs. Linux, both of which should become legacy operating systems in 5-6 years.

Re:Losing their platform

[Ant P.]

Yeah, but you can do that with chroot and probably an ext2 patch.

Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[ex-geek]

Microsoft gives you at least a (costly) option. Apple (correct me, if I'm wrong) doesn't.

And no, I am not a MS fanboy. I've been using Linux for more then ten years almost exclusively. Lack of hassle with licensing issues being one of the reasons for my choice of OS.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[itsdapead]

Microsoft gives you at least a (costly) option. Apple (correct me, if I'm wrong) doesn't.

True-ish, and Apple certainly can't chuck any bricks in that particular greenhouse. However, there are a couple of mitigating factors:

1. Apple do not have a 95% monopoly of the desktop market. If you don't like Apple's policy, vote with your feet (sounds like you already have). OTOH the group who are disadvantaged most by MS's policy are those who don't like Windows and are trying to switch to Mac or Linux but - because of the MS software monoculture - can only do so if they still have a way of accessing Windows.
2. The issue of virtualising OSX is in a chicken-and-egg state - I don't know if VMWare or Parallels support EFI (needed by OSX) or support OSX's graphics requirements (of course, no one reputable will admit to having tried it).
3. I don't think there's a huge market for it (once you dismiss the "I want to try OSX on my PC" brigade) - the big demands for windows-hosted virtualization come from the developer and server consolidation markets. The Apple world doesn't have the huge army of in-house developers that buy VMWare Workstation , and I'd guess that OSX Server is used predomniantly for high performance file sharing, render-farming etc. - not the sort of things you virtualize. The money in OSX-hosted virtualization is from users who need to run Windows. (Cross refernce with above point). I'm guessing they only support other non-MS guests because they were already supported by their existing windows-hosted products.

If Apple doesn't sort this out soon they're going to start hacking off developers - virtualization is so darn useful. This will come to a head when 10.5 is released and betas of 10.6 go out and developers have to juggle past, present and future major versions of the x86 based OS - but the initiative will have to come from developers, via Apple - Parallels and VMWare have no strong incentive to break a sweat over it.

P.S. Also bear in mind that the last thing Apple want is, officially or otherwise, a "try-before-you-buy" route for OSX: even if the implementation was non-flakey, the first impression of playing with a new OS is always frustration because of the differences and the fact that your instinct is to plunge into "clever stuff" rather than work through the basics. Better if you are sold on the idea by an evangelist, part with cash, and have a $2000 incentive to get over having to press the fricking pretzel key instead of "ctrl".

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

"I've been using Linux for more then ten years almost exclusively."

But you are a total newbie at using "than".

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

On your vmware OSX question. OSX has definitely has been hacked to run in VMWare. I've seen 10.4.8 running in a vmware window. It was (a) slow and (b) the network card didn't work. I still think it's a legit thing, not just a novelty hack for pirates. For example, a common use of vmware is software testing. Having virtual machines for OSX 10.4.* is a perfectly sensible way of making sure your software product works in all of the operating systems your customers have. I can understand that Apple will probably never allow this though, because the developer is not the target market.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[Anonymous Coward]

On your vmware OSX question. OSX has definitely has been hacked to run in VMWare. I've seen 10.4.8 running in a vmware window. It was (a) slow and (b) the network card didn't work. I still think it's a legit thing, not just a novelty hack for pirates. For example, a common use of vmware is software testing. Having virtual machines for OSX 10.4.* is a perfectly sensible way of making sure your software product works in all of the operating systems your customers have. I can understand that Apple will probably never allow this though, because the developer is not the target market.

It's absolutely a legit thing. I bought a Mac Pro because I want to be able to run both OS X and Linux on the same machine. I can run Linux in a VM, but what I really want to do is run Linux as the host, and run OS X in a VM for the few Mac apps I really like.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[itsdapead]

I can understand that Apple will probably never allow this though, because the developer is not the target market.

Apple's main concern is, presumably, to stop people running OSX on PC hardware. Currently, any OSX running virtualized must have had the hardware limitation hacked out. That would require Apple, VMWare & Parallels to get their heads together to sort out a solution - which also assumes that they are using some sort of strong cryptography-based system with a key held on the motherboard somewhere that the hypervisor could securely "proxy" - rather than some security-by-obscurity kludge.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[bill_mcgonigle]

If Apple doesn't sort this out soon they're going to start hacking off developers - virtualization is so darn useful. This will come to a head when 10.5 is released and betas of 10.6 go out and developers have to juggle past, present and future major versions of the x86 based OS - but the initiative will have to come from developers, via Apple - Parallels and VMWare have no strong incentive to break a sweat over it.

Quite so - I most want to virtualize Mac OS X on a Mac. On Linux I mostly virtualize linux, on Mac I virtualize linux and windows, on Windows... OK, I don't let Windows run on hardware. But I'd love to have a couple extra OSX VM's for development work. A stack of minis is just lame when Xen makes this so blessedly easy on Linux.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[mp3phish]

"which also assumes that they are using some sort of strong cryptography-based system with a key held on the motherboard somewhere that the hypervisor could securely "proxy" - rather than some security-by-obscurity kludge."

I don't see any point in avoiding your example of "security by obscurity kludge" when the whole idea of the motherboard/chip/OSX restriction is security by obscurity in the first place. I just don't see a valid reason why they would try to avoid an obscure hack if it can do the trick for cheap.

Trying to get that restriction to pass through the VM "the right way" would really be equivalent to polishing the turd.

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice

[itsdapead]

I don't see any point in avoiding your example of "security by obscurity kludge" when the whole idea of the motherboard/chip/OSX restriction is security by obscurity in the first place.

OK, so all DRM is broken, because while cryptography is the advanced science of getting a message from Alice to Bob without Eve being able to intercept it, DRM is a futile attempt to stop Bob then handing the message to Eve in return for a good seeing-to. That's a given. I wasn't defending it.

My point was that a cryptography-based system can use an open, stable protocol which a hypervisor could "proxy" - with clean hands - and let OSX satisfy itself that it is being hosted on a Mac. Anybody found reverse-engineering the ID chip or hacking the software can then be carted off to Guantanamo under the DMCA, so that's OK. If its a kludge, the hypervisor would have to know the secret and if its just a collection of hardware characteristics that Mac hardware happens to have it could be (a) very difficult to emulate and/or (b) hard to keep secret.

Microsof is right

[ghoul]

Bad things can happen when you virtualize. Corporate users understand this and moreover have their own IT people to support this. On the other hand if end users virtualize Vista basic and then face problems they will be burning up the Microsoft support lines and pretty soon the amount spent on support will be more than the cost of the basic edition. Given this scenario MS has two options - price all versions the same as premium and build in the cost of extensive support into the price or have separately priced versions with a cheaper version for people who just want to net surf . I believe MS is doing the right thing by having a cheap version which they restrict so they dont have to provide a lot of support and hence can afford to sell cheap instead of pricing everything expensively just so a few cheapskate nerds who want to virtualize but are too cheap to buy the expensive version will not badmouth them. Besides why not just Linux KVM if you are into virtualization. Except for the virtual shared memory Vista Virtualization has virtually (pardon the pun) nothing which Linux doesnt have.

Re:Microsof is right

[idesofmarch]

Your post would be valid if Microsoft actually gave free technical support with their OSes. However, this is not the case - usually a for-fee trouble ticket is required for anything beyond activation key issues.

Re:Microsof is right

[ghoul]

I didnt understand your alt+f4 comment. Could you show me how by doing it on your computer?

Re:Microsof is right

[Opportunist]

2 key fallacies: First of all, it would require MS to actually offer any kind of user support to speak of. Or at least one that speaks a language I can understand (and no, that is NOT English. I know English when I hear it, and this is NOT, ok?).

And second, it doesn't get better when you buy Vista super duper ultimate increibly superspecialawesome edition. You still have the same, shoddy, crummy support. What is a support good for if it's crappy, even free it's too expensive, because it costs my time.

Re:Microsof is right

[Anonymous Coward]

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

Care to provide some examples?

Corporate users understand this and moreover have their own IT people to support this.

Corporate users understand that they can get lower hardware costs, easier administration, lower overheads and faster turnaround using virtualisation.

My VMWare ESX 3 server is already hosting several Windows XP instances for our users, including build and test systems, customer VPN clients and casual remote access. We're a large business and have a site license for XP Pro, but I don't see why a smaller company shouldn't be able to do something similiar without having to fork out a whole lot more money than they need to.

Re:Microsof is right

[NickFortune]

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

How true. I virtualise and I got stuck in a traffic jam on my way into work for three hours!

The trouble is, I have a suspicion that it might have happened even if I didn't virtualise. So maybe it isn't related.

Did you have any concrete examples of Bad Things that can happen as a direct result of virtualisation?

Re:Microsof is right

[dangitman]

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

Like Kim Jong Il raping your daughters. You have been warned!

Re:Microsof is right

[Anonymous Coward]

your an idiot You shouldn't call people idiots when you can't write correctly a simple sentence.

Re:Microsof is right

[ghoul]

How about having your monitor OS being replaced with one with a backdoor built into it which detects whenever signals are being sent to a virtual nic and copies the data to another ip address on another nic? Not something MS wants to be supporting for a host of naive users

UAC for management

[vdboor]

You are changing the EULA of your latest product. cancel or allow? :-)

Re:UAC for management

[Anonymous Coward]

> You are changing the EULA of your latest product. cancel or allow? :-)

Allow.

> [PRIVILEGE VIOLATION]
> I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

Re:UAC for management

[A_Non_Moose]

You are changing the EULA of your latest product. cancel or allow? :-)

UAC for a EULA, by jove that'd make it a EUACLA (You-ACK-LA).

Innovation, at last!

Re:UAC for management

[uyguremre]

It would me more like this: To sell more copies of windows you have to allow virtualisation. cancel or allow? allow *click* Are you sure? We don't want users to use other operating systems. cancel or allow? cancel *click*

Re:UAC for management

[Anonymous Coward]

You are changing the EULA of your latest product. cancel or allow? :-)

Yes

Re:UAC for management

[Kalriath]

Off-topic a bit, but where does this whole "Allow or cancel" thing come from? It sure as hell doesn't come from UAC, whose options are always "Continue or Cancel" - so what is it?

The Mac Threat

[stewbacca]

From TFA:

Cynics say that this is Microsoft's way of punishing Mac switchers, while Microsoft calls it a "security" issue.

Microsoft isn't stupid, and they can see the writing on the wall. Switchers pose a problem for Microsoft, because most anecdotal evidence and many studies show that switchers don't switch back to Windows. Now before you bash me as an Apple fanboi, consider this: most people who leave Windows are looking for an out due to frustration. Even if you think Mac OS X is inferior to Windows, someone looking to get away from Windows might not be the most objective person in the world. Apple's plan is to get people to switch, to just taste OS X, and then count on them not going back to Windows. Intel Macs make it "safe" for users to try it, because they can always fall back to Windows if OS X doesn't work out for them.

The most ridiculous part of the MS strategy, though, is to assume people pay attention to the EULA anyway. I recently installed XP on my Intel Mac on to a boot camp partition. Parellels is smart enough to see the boot camp partition and run in VM mode. Is that "illegal"? Will Microsoft come kick in my door? Would I be able to do the same thing with Vista (probably) even though the EULA states I can't?

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

Switchers pose a problem for Microsoft, because most anecdotal evidence and many studies show that switchers don't switch back to Windows. Now before you bash me as an Apple fanboi, consider this: most people who leave Windows are looking for an out due to frustration.

I'll give you evidence for the contrary. In 1999 I was fully Linux, I switched from Windows because my laptop was too low spec and Windows ran bad, and Linux ran well. In december 2001, I switched from Linux to a fancy new iBook G3 running OS X and was very very happy. Alas, this was an iBook that presented the dreaded logic board failure and after a mere 3 years, it manifested. Just right after the extended warranty (because of the known problem) had expired. This of course, happened just after the announcement that Apple was switching to Intel. So buying a new iBook was not an option.

I bought a second hand P-III 600MHz/512Meg RAM for 100€ and used it until it physically started to fall apart. This machine ran Win XP Pro and ran it well. Beginning this year, I replaced it (I mentioned that it physcially started to fall apart) and I didn't even consider an iBook since they were over 1100€ and I could get a (lower, but still fine) specced laptop for 800€ with Win XP Media Center. Now, the idea is to run Linux on it eventually, but I'm married and haven't got the same kind of spare time as I did back in 2000....

So, there you go: a back-switcher. That said, I know how to secure and harden Windows machines. My machines never have problems, bar of course hardware problems... but even Apple isn't immune to that.

Re:The Mac Threat

[pandrijeczko]

I can't be objective about Mac OS X - I've never used it because I've never had a need to and I doubt that I ever will.

But I think you're mistaken if you believe that people who choose to migrate from Windows are flocking to Macs. The fact is that if you're a Windows user with a PC, running Mac OS X entails buying a new piece of hardware that is probably more expensive than the PC you already have. Here in the UK, I've been a techie in the I.T/telecoms/security arena for some 20+ years now and I can count the number of people I've seen using Macs, or people I know have them, on one hand - that's absolutely no lie.

If there is a "migration" away from Windows, and if there is I don't think it's a particularly big one, then it's by people dual-booting Ubuntu or some other Linux distro. I myself support and secure Linux (and UNIX) based application servers, I use Linux for about 90% of my overall computing time but even I cannot do without Windows XP and MS Office some of the time. Still, it doesn't bother me - a piece of software is a tool to get a job done and if you don't use the correct tool for a job, then you're a fool.

Re:The Mac Threat

[Tanuki64]

First you write:

Now, the idea is to run Linux on it eventually, but I'm married and haven't got the same kind of spare time as I did back in 2000....

Then:

That said, I know how to secure and harden Windows machines.

Yes, I know Windows can be hardened, though I cannot do it myself, I do know one or two people who can. But I have never seen a person, who could harden his Windows and forget maintenance forever. Keeping in touch with all the Windows problems is a lengthy and time consuming task. The strange thing is most people does't seem to recognise how much time they spend on nonproductive time just to keep their system clean. Another problem is that many hardly see when their efforts failed.

On the other hand you rarely get Linux preinstalled, therefore Linux is sooo difficult, you have to spend sooo much time just to install it. If you make a mistake, you almost for sure see that something is wrong, which causes most people to feel dumb. People don't like feeling dumb, so Linux must be the cause.

However, if it is installed and running it is very low maintenance. So there might be a couple of reasons to prefer Windows over Linux, but for sure it has nothing to do with 'spare time' or the lack of it.

Re:The Mac Threat

[stewbacca]

Of course some people switch back. Just like, even though consumer surveys show Apple at 85-90% satisfaction rates, some people still don't like them. Had you been able to purchase an Intel MacBook, though, and didn't like OS X, you'd have been more apt to have kept the MacBook and just booted in Windows mode. This, I believe, is what Apple is counting on.

Most people weren't even interested in trying to switch before Intel Macs because of the hardware cost of buying a new Mac for something they "might" like. For some reason, Apple adding Intel chips has got more of my PC geek friends talking about buying new Macs, even though they'll argue that they are too expensive compared to equally equiped PC offerings. That tells me they are at least remotely interested in using OS X and the security blanket of dual-booting is enough to get them to go for it, even if the EULA technically doesn't allow it.

Another thing with the EULA, at least Microsoft will be preventing, say, entire schools from adopting Intel Macs and using VM to run Windows. If this prevents schools from making the switch, schools will never experience the OS X side, and thus, never switch to OS X in the first place. I don't blame MS for this, but the home user EULA is a bit unrealistic (to think that home users will pay attention to it). It is different when the Ed. Tech has to follow the EULA because he/she is audited every 6-months or so.

Re:The Mac Threat

[Dan Ost]

The thing your missing is that most people don't consider switching until they've already decided the replace their current machine. At that point, spending the $$$ for a Mac isn't really any different from spending the $$$ on a new Windows box except that with the Mac, there's the chance that they may not be as frustrated with the OS as they are with the current machine. If if doesn't work out, then they can simply load windows on their Mac and they're no worse off (except that they've explicitly paid for windows...but it seems to be a price they're willing to pay for the chance to get away from windows).

People who are savvy enough to know that they can migrate their current machine to Linux aren't really the people that MS is afraid of leaving (they've already lost them or kept them, depending).

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

Actually, that's not true. My Windows machines are extremely low maintenance. Why? Simple: I install a basic set of applications, all my users run Limited User, I have an antivirus, Internet Explorer and Outlook (Express) are explicitly banned for all users. My family knows I know better, and they simply accept my software choices. So, sure, I pass a weekend in pain setting up Windows that way, adapting programs so that they run in Limited User (so, you have to know quite a deal about ACLs for that) and then... ehm, then, it's over.

Turn on Automatic update, and that's it... Never any problem and my users can report any problem at any time.

Oh, and there is the tiny little fact that all the machines I manage are behind an OpenBSD firewall. Don't think I can't handle Linux because I can handle OpenBSD just fine.

The thing is with Linux: if you really want your Linux as you wish and not some choices some distro manager made, then it becomes hard. That's exactly what I want: I do not accept Ubuntus choice of Evolution as an email client for example. So, I have to remove it and install Thunderbird instead. Sure, not hard, but I prefer to start from base, and build from there on. That's why I use Debian, but I lack the knowledge of which package is required for what. That's a whole lot of research, reseach I already have done for Windows and is "knowledge" by now. I know, I know, you're going to blame my familiarity with Windows. I accept that, but if I want Linux "my way", I need to invest time in it. Time that my wife is going to complain about because I don't spend it with her.

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

If the Intel iBooks (I hate the word "MacBook") would have been available. Yes, I would have bought one the next day. Not for their build quality, since that obviously sucked with my experience, but because OS X was such a fine OS. I never needed the security of dual-booting, I got a G3, remember? The whole point was that I did like the OS, but the hardware broke too fast (a computer should last 4-5 years in my eyes, with minor upgrades). The timing it broke was indeed bad, but they lost a customer in me.

I'll buy an iMac for my wife when her computer breaks... That machine is +/-3 years old: a P-IV 2.6GHz/2Gig RAM (upgraded from 512Meg) running Windows XP Pro, and frankly, with the usage she has from it, it'll still be chugging along in 3 years. So, while I would like to buy an Intel Mac, I cannot reasonably justify one unless a computer breaks. I'm also saving for a house someday, and every 100€ counts. My wife can have a Mac when she needs a computer, but I'm going to step back and do with the low-end.

Re:The Mac Threat

[Hatta]

Linux doesn't take nearly as much spare time as it did back in 2000. (K)Ubuntu has really gotten good. Try it.

Re:The Mac Threat

[pebs]

I know, I know, you're going to blame my familiarity with Windows. I accept that, but if I want Linux "my way", I need to invest time in it. Time that my wife is going to complain about because I don't spend it with her.

Lesson learned: don't get married, it will turn you into a Windows user.

I am dumping my girlfriend as we speak.

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

I know... If you accept the choices of a distro maintainer. You see, the neat thing about Windows is that it comes pretty much without features, and you build up on that. Install OpenOffice.org, install K-Lite Video coded pack, install Adobe Reader, etc.... etc...

In essence, I get the system exactly as I want it because I can build it from the bottom up. Not so with Ubuntu (I have it on my laptop, it is a fine system, but not how I want it) because choices have been made for you. So, with Ubuntu, I get a full system and then have to start to break it. Want Thunderbird? Uninstall evolution (with eventual consequences... e.g. Address book is seemingly integrated to other parts of the system) and install Thunderbird. That is just one example. You see, here you destroy then rebuild. In Windows, you only build. That somehow feels cleaner to me.

So, no, I am not going to bash Linux for this. It clearly is a Distro matter and this means I need to choose a distro that allows me to do this and that means going Slackware, Gentoo or Debian. Well, I chose Debian (on my workstation, which I had to decommission because of changes in family... Too bad that my AMD Athlon MP 24000+/4Gig of RAM will end its days in the garage of my parents) and I built up my system from the bottom up. However, not knowing exactly what packages I should install (An iTunes replacement? Eeeuh... Amarok! Of course, how could I not know that! *sigh*), much research has to be put into this. Research I have done for Windows and has thus become knowledge. That said, after a week I did have a Debian how I liked it. Of course, as I said, the machine is now decommissioned and I need to start all over on my (new) laptop.

So, yes, you can blame me for this... The fact that I want to have my machine exactly the way I want is the reason I need time. Time I do not have, and in Windows it's easy, because I've done it so many times over so many years...

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

Well, you could just buy a Mac.... It's more expensive, but so are wives... *sigh* (My motives for not buying a Mac were explained already)

Is there anyone that made a TCO study on wives versus girlfriends?

Re:The Mac Threat

[pebs]

Well, you could just buy a Mac.... It's more expensive, but so are wives... *sigh* (My motives for not buying a Mac were explained already)

Is there anyone that made a TCO study on wives versus girlfriends?

Funny thing is that I did just buy a Mac Pro to give it a fair try to see if I like it better than Linux and to replace a G4 Mac Mini that was too slow. But I'm spending so much time trying to get it setup to my satisfaction, getting things moved from my Linux machine, and learning how to use OS X properly, that my girlfriend is getting pissed that I'm spending so much time on it. Now I'm having a bit of buyers remorse (the Mac Pro was expensive) and wishing I had just bought a MacBook instead and kept using my Linux workstation as my main machine. I really got used to Linux and developed habits around it, and I'm actually missing it quite a bit. I'll eventually move my Linux setup to a VM, but that's another thing that is going to take time.

I guess when you get serious with a woman, time for hobbies shrinks closer and closer to zero. I'd also be interested in that TCO study :)

Re:The Mac Threat

[Corporate Troll]

The main problem is that women (most of them at least) do not understand how you can even spend so much time on a *thing*. At least mine has a big problem with that. Also, we computer geeks that prefer to have our machines "to our likings" need much more time to do that than just plug in and go, like most people do.

That said, you can run Linux on your MacBook Pro if you wouldn't like OS X.

A few lines of Wisdom

[MemoryDragon]

Mac OSX Home Basic 129$
Mac OSX Home Premium 129$
Mac OSX Business 129$
Mac OSX Ultimate 129$

Ubuntu Home Basic 0$
Ubuntu Home Premium 0$
Ubuntu Business 0$
Ubuntu Ultimate 0$

A both OSes have home versions which allow restore of backuped Data...
For Vista you need Ultimate or Business to get restore functionality ;-)

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

But, your comparison forgets that the $129 you pay for OS/X is for the software.
OS/X
- No Multidigit license key to enter
- No Activation Required
- No Constant Nagware (automatic updates, can;t detect your AVG or Zone Alarm firewall, IE trusted zones etc etc etc)
- One payment for all your MAC's and share amongst your friends etc.

Taking this all into consideration, Apple is far closer to the Ubuntu/Fedora model(Free) than Microsoft(Sign your life into slavery).

Granted you have to be able to run it on Apple Supplied H/W but these days the Apple Premium of old is almost non existent in many markets and in some cases, can be cheaper than an equivalent based system running Vista.

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[jimicus]

Really? So with Vista, you can't just copy data across to a USB hard disk and then copy back at a later date should you need to?

(yes, I know what you really mean, but Windows has always lagged behind in terms of "tools included which do real, useful stuff like, oh, I don't know, BACK UP YOUR STUFF".)

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to bust your bubble... I'm a proud Ubuntu user myself...

But there IS a coporate OSX pricing, there's a family plan, and there's a server edition, to name a few.

And Ubuntu DOES have a corporate version, it's just that it comes with support.

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[Phroggy]

He wasn't trying to make the point that Mac OS X is expensive compared to Ubuntu, he was trying to make the point that both Mac OS X and Ubuntu are cheap (and less complicated) compared to Windows Vista. Not including server versions (Mac OS X Server, and Windows Server 2003 or Windows Server 2008), there's only one "edition", with one feature set (for each OS), available for one price ($129 or free, respectively). There is no "Ubuntu Ultimate Edition" which has more features and costs more than "Ubuntu Home Basic Edition".

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[tshak]

A both OSes have home versions which allow restore of backuped Data...
For Vista you need Ultimate or Business to get restore functionality ;-)


All SKU's support automatic file backup and restore. There is additional functionality in Ultimate and Business for making an image of your entire system.

See: Windows Backup and Restore Center

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[Ant P.]

Windows has always had some sort of backup program, even XP Home. It seems to compress the backups with lzip, though.

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[jimicus]

Yeah, but most of them have been complete crap.

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[thr2k]

The ability to run a majority of the software available today... Priceless.

Sorry, not to sound trollish, but that really is the problem with the alternatives (Mac and Linux)The do not easily run a lot of software.

I have played around with Ubuntu and it is very pretty. I tried to install some software (VMWare player for example.) and it failed with one of those wonderfully geeky error messages that would tell leave a normal user stranded. So what was an easy install on Windows turned into a several hour pain in the butt on Ubuntu. I have not tried a Mac yet, my cool friends say it is awsome.

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[Anonymous Coward]

Mac OSX Home Basic 129$ Mac OSX Home Premium 129$ Mac OSX Business 129$ Mac OSX Ultimate 129$

And how much virtualization does Apple allow you with "any of these versions"?

Re:A few lines of Wisdom

[acidrain]

So integrated backup support is not "part of the os" but the web-browser cannot be removed. That is funny Microsoft.

Malware

[Ravnen]

Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware?

I imagine it can actually be effective in combatting some forms of malware. If only 10% of users buy the high-priced version, only 10% would be vulnerable to any malware targeted at it. This would make it much more difficult for malware to spread, especially the sort that spreads from one infected machine to another.

Lame

[palemantle]

From TFA: "For its part, Microsoft says that hypervisor rootkits are a serious threat to virtualization, and they could be right."

Surely, they don't mean to suggest that hypervisor rootkits stop being a threat as soon as the user ponies up the additional $210 or so for a Vista Ultimate edition?
Come on, M$, take your time and try to come up with a better excuse than that! Saying ... oooh hypervisor rootkit!!! ... won't fool any of the guys who know enough to employ virtualization.

Re:Lame

[Ravnen]

From a purely technical perspective, the argument is of course ridiculous. However, it actually can make sense is if they're assuming users buying Vista Ultimate/Business are more technically sophisticated, and so not as likely to be vulnerable to this sort of malware. There's also the issue of volume: Vista Ultimate and Business are more expensive, so will have lower volume, making them less attractive targets for malware authors.

Re:Lame

[pandrijeczko]

s/technically sophisticated/gullible/g

Re:Lame

[rajafarian]

"Vista Ultimate and Business are more expensive, so will have lower volume, making them less attractive targets for malware authors."

Do the different flavors of Vista use different APIs so that software written for one won't work on the others? Honest question. (If not, your post is dumb.)

Re:Lame

[krack]

The solution to the hypervisor rootkit scenario is to be ALREADY running your OS in a VM. So OS's that are legally allowed to be run in a VM are less likely to be hit by hypervisor rootkits, because a % of them will be already running in VMs and thus immune to that attack.

The difference

[Opportunist]

So far, I can't remember a law that outlaws overclocking or unlocking additional render pipelines.

On the other hand, should I dare to mess with the software to bend to my will...

Once virtualization is criminalized...

[vrmlguy]

... only criminals will have virtualization.

Didn't MS say someting about the security issues of hardware virtualization? Hello? Haven't they hard of Blue Pill? Can someone explain how an EULA can keep malware from attacking a system? (And yes, I know that Blue Pill isn't a real threat... today.)

How long until...

[Opportunist]

...all we get is $EULA and it's adapted on a daily base with the routine call in Redmond?

Re:How long until...

[jimicus]

We already do. Various Windows updates (including at least one security update) have come with a separate EULA which is different to that which shipped with Windows.

Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst that can happen is that MS asks you to uninstall it.

DRM Thing?

[Zo0ok]

Not even the Ultimate License allows you to watch/play DRMd content in a virtual machine. It is impossible to technically restrict what can be done with content as soon as it is played in a Virtual Machine. Audio is especially easy to make perfect digital copies of, even if it is DRMd.

Allowing home editions of Vista to be run in Virtual Machines would essentially make the DRM protection in Vista useless.

Re:DRM Thing?

[anon mouse-cow-aard]

mod parent up. You tap the data streams in and out of the VM, it is much easier
for to get at the content from software.

In the end though, what nasty person is going to pay attention to a eula?
The first hack is going to be to patch so that vista doesnt recognize that it is in a VM.

then the warez/pirate folk will go on their merry way...

This will only affect casual piracy, and fair use (as usual.)

Re:DRM Thing?

[utnapistim]

In the end though, what nasty person is going to pay attention to a eula?

Unfortunately, probably the BSA will...

Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[GomezAdams]

My current assignment is with a server consolidation team. One of the things we are doing is reducing the number of servers and virtualizing everything we can. If we can't virualize MS Windows to reduce hardware count then in the future Linux will be the platform of choice for servers. All the major players have Linux versions of the server software I use - databases and web based servers are the majority of corporate servers today so when I design systems I don't even consider a Microsoft based solution. Scalability and security are the main reasons. The Microsoft solution is to throw hardware at a problem requiring more licenses and more expense to the data center at all levels. Since Java runs everywhere, although I prefer other languages, WebSphere and WebLogic are the major players along with Apache for web based applications. Any database I need runs on any UNIX and some Linux distros. So I have no need to fight the PHBs who eat Microsoft FUD for breakfast when I can point to, in this case, millions of dollars in annual savings when they dump every server running Microsoft and never put another one in the data centers.

So leave Gates and Co alone. I don't want them to allow virtualization. It will make my job a whole lot easier.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[coolGuyZak]

Have fun as your virtualized DB servers thrash their VM's & toss them about like so much tissue paper.

Also, your PHB's won't be sold on MS's consumer line. They'll be looking at the Business & Enterprise editions, which, AFAIK, both allow virtualization.

Synergize your information infrastructure by integrating Microsoft-brand cereals into your e-diet. Microsoft Business & Enterprise products are part of a well-balanced breakfast. The fiber you need; the software you trust. Eat Microsoft.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[Anonymous Coward]

My current assignment is with a server consolidation team. One of the things we are doing is reducing the number of servers and virtualizing everything we can. If we can't virualize MS Windows to reduce hardware count then in the future Linux will be the platform of choice for servers.

Oh right, you're running servers on Vista Home? It's not Microsoft who shot themselves in the foot on this one.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[tshak]

My current assignment is with a server consolidation team.

Windows Vista is not a server operating system so this won't affect you. What you're looking for is Windows Server 2008.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[GomezAdams]

Absolutely not. But we have a crud load of Win3K servers (~600) that I, and most of the team, want to get rid of but they still have life in the product that's running on them. If we can stop more WinTel boxes going up in the future then we can everntually ween the management off Microsoft in the data center which now has a bit over 2000 boxes in it, in just the main center.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[GomezAdams]

We haven't had a single problem with the DB servers(or any others) in at least three years that I been doing this. Oracle and DB2 running on pSeries hardware - some recent Solaris 10 containers stacking up a couple of DB servers. We usually only put one DB server on a box, in any configuration, and add light load apps just to bring the CPU & MEM up to 90% at some whacked statistical formula for 95% of the time, plus close checking on the I/O channels so there isn't any time they get bogged down. This approach works fine but you have to have experts doing this sort of thing - not just any MS certified Bozos.

Re:Let 'em shoot themselves the foot

[coolGuyZak]

In which case, I guess I stand corrected.

The real reason

[paulxnuke]

Virtualizing the cheap versions is a big problem for MS.

Anyone who wants to virtualize obviously has another OS they like. The cheap Vista versions limit features to the point of uselessness: they're there to be sold to OEM's cheap, to let MS advertise a low entry price, and to encourage users to upgrade.

Virtualizing Vista Home would let me have a "real" copy to play with and test stuff on, with no limitation since I have the (almost always better) facilities of another OS available. No motivation to upgrade -> no reason for Vista Home to exist. For my purposes Vista is easy enough to install that there's no real need even to activate it, just don't keep any important data there.

The fact that they care at all about this suggests that there are a lot of people who might be interested in virtualizing Vista. Maybe because they want/need to play with it but realize it's nowhere near ready to be a primary OS yet?

DRM?

[DrRobert]

I asssumed that the reason they want to limit virtualization is that it becomes realitively easy to remove DRM from anything when the OS is virtualized, because the host OS can capture and record whatever "pipe" comes out of the virtual environment. DRM is key to MS vendor lock-in and domination of media markets. Particularly with the OS level DRM integration in Vista.

shady marketing technique

[v1]

the bottom line here is that recent innovation in marketing - the selective license. "So how much does it cost?" "That depends. How much money do you have?" If you really had a choice, would you do business with someone like that? Of course not.

The real truth here is that they want to charge you more money if you are virtualizing because they know you either have more coin if you are running a VM (most likely an intel mac) or that you are not going to be a long running customer. (most likely running linux emu)

imho this pricing model should be illegal. Products should not be sold based on how valuable it is TO YOU, but how valuable it is on its own merit. Product price should not be allowed to be based on how much money you have to spend, that does not affect the actual value of your product. It's no different than price-gouging based on scarcity in a region. The only thing that keeps this practice in check normally is law of supply and demand, but with software you have a legally supported monopoly so that doesn't help.

Re:shady marketing technique

[Lisandro]

Products should not be sold based on how valuable it is TO YOU, but how valuable it is on its own merit. Product price should not be allowed to be based on how much money you have to spend, that does not affect the actual value of your product.

No, sorry. The price is set by how much the consumer is willing to pay for the product, because products are NOT not inherently valuble. The trick is finding a balance between manufacture cost and sell price.

The only thing that keeps this practice in check normally is law of supply and demand, but with software you have a legally supported monopoly so that doesn't help.

Indeed, this is a problem with monopolies, because what makes this mechanism work is indeed the law of supply and demand - that is, if you price something too expensive there might very well be someone willing to sell it for less. This is the reason most countries have antitrust laws in one way or another.

Re:shady marketing technique

[Ravnen]

Actually, price discrimination improves economic efficiency, and perfect price discrimination theoretically allows a monopoly to be as efficient as perfect competition (and remember that almost no competitive market is perfectly competitive). This means that, if you're interested in maximising overall gains from economic activity, and a market is a natural monopoly (e.g. because of network effects), then price discrimination should be encouraged.

Without perfect price discrimination there will still be some deadweight loss from a monopoly. However, competition is almost never perfect either. Moreover, if a market is a natural monopoly, then the most effective use of resources is the case of a single producer, i.e. a monopolist. Beyond the wastefulness of having multiple producers in such a market, there may be potential gains in terms of technological progress, because a monopoly can use its supernormal profit to invest in research which may be beneficial overall, but would not be viable for a firm facing competitors that would also benefit from it. Technological progress is what drives economic growth in the long run, so this is an important issue.

Mind you, Windows is not a monopoly in strict economic terms, even if its dominance is high enough to produce many of the same effects.

Re:shady marketing technique

[Hatta]

Actually, price discrimination improves economic efficiency, and perfect price discrimination theoretically allows a monopoly to be as efficient as perfect competition

How?

Re:shady marketing technique

[Ravnen]

In a perfectly competitive market, the price of a good and quantity produced are determined by supply and demand. As long as a firm can sell an additional unit for more than the cost of producing it, it will produce and sell that extra unit. Importantly, in a competitive market, an individual firm has no control over the market price: if it tries to push it up by restricting output, competitors will simply fill the gap, and the market price will remain unchanged, i.e. at the level where the value to the buyer of the last unit of output is the same as the value of the inputs used to produce it.

The efficiency loss from a monopolist selling a good at a single price comes from the fact that it can control the market price by restricting its level of output, which is also the market level of output. If the monopolist produces the same quantity as in a competitive market, the price will be the same. However, as the monopolist decreases output, the price it can charge for every unit of output goes up. As a result, it will restrict the quantity produced to a level that maximises profit, i.e. where the change in revenue from the last unit of output (considering the impact it has on the market price) is just equal to the cost of producing that unit. This quantity will be lower than in a competitive market, and the price will be higher.

If the monopolist can perfectly discriminate, however, it will have no incentive to restrict production. It will be able to increase production until the value to the buyer of last unit of output is equal to the value of the inputs required to produce it, which is the same quantity produced under perfect competition. In this case, the monopolist will be selling each unit of the good to each buyer for precisely the value of that unit to the buyer, and an additional unit of output would have a lower value to the buyer than the value of the resources used to produce it. In other words, the outcome in this case is efficient.

The objection to a monopoly in this case, as compared to perfect competition, is not a matter of efficiency, but rather of fairness. The level of output is the same as in a perfectly competitive market, but in a competitive market, buyers are able to buy the good for a price below its value to them (up to the last unit bought), and this gain to the buyers is called the consumer surplus. In a monopoly with perfect price discrimination, the entire consumer surplus is transferred to the producer, which is arguably unfair, but does not decrease efficiency.

Re:shady marketing technique

[jay2003]

What the hell are you talking about? The efficiency of perfect competition means there is no economic profit for producers and quite a bit of consumer surplus for consumers. A monopoly is no where near as efficient as perfect competition absent some pretty dramatic economies of scale which would tend to create a monopoly.

Under a single a price there are 3 types of consumers. Those who would have paid more, and they get to keep the difference as consumer surplus which is not a dead weight loss. Those who would only pay the exact price. And finally those who find the product too expensive. Assuming the willingness to pay of the consumers not buying due to price is above marginal cost, there is a dead weight loss of foregone producer surplus. However that dead weight loss is not being avoided with Vista at relative to XP as there are no cheaper versions of Vista than XP. If there were perfect competition for operating systems, this dead weight loss would be avoided. Microsoft being to charge higher prices and reduce consumer surplus is not more efficient in any economic sense.

Your argument about monoploy investment is wrong as well. A monopoly or any other business will only invest in projects that have positive economic returns. Being a monopoly does not reduce the cost of capital to the business. All those profits are owned by shareholders. and the research is subject to the same return criteria as any another business.

Re:shady marketing technique

[Ravnen]

What the hell are you talking about? The efficiency of perfect competition means there is no economic profit for producers and quite a bit of consumer surplus for consumers.

No, economic efficiency is not a matter of economic profit, it has to do with whether or not the value to the buyer of an additional unit of output would exceed the value of the resources used to produce it. In a monopoly with perfect price discrimination, the value to the buyer of the last unit of output is precisely equal to the value of the resources used to produce it, i.e. it is just as efficient as perfect competition.

Under a single a price there are 3 types of consumers. Those who would have paid more, and they get to keep the difference as consumer surplus which is not a dead weight loss. Those who would only pay the exact price. And finally those who find the product too expensive. Assuming the willingness to pay of the consumers not buying due to price is above marginal cost, there is a dead weight loss of foregone producer surplus. However that dead weight loss is not being avoided with Vista at relative to XP as there are no cheaper versions of Vista than XP. If there were perfect competition for operating systems, this dead weight loss would be avoided. Microsoft being to charge higher prices and reduce consumer surplus is not more efficient in any economic sense.

Try to imagine the price Microsoft would charge if there were a single edition of Vista. Consider whether or not it would be higher than the price of the Home Basic edition, and/or lower than the price of the Ultimate edition. Mind you, there are functional differences between the different editions of Vista, so it isn't quite a matter of price discrimination anyway.

Your argument about monoploy investment is wrong as well. A monopoly or any other business will only invest in projects that have positive economic returns. Being a monopoly does not reduce the cost of capital to the business. All those profits are owned by shareholders. and the research is subject to the same return criteria as any another business.

It's far more complex than a simple matter of the cost of capital, and an implicit assumption of perfectly functioning capital markets.

The essence of the Schumpeterian view that monopolies are more innovative than competitive firms lies in the fact that a monopoly firm is guaranteed to reap the full value of any innovations it produces, and thus has a greater incentive to innovate. This is the same logic underlying patent and copyright laws, but a monopoly in a given market is a far stronger guarantee than a patent or copyright. There are other factors supporting this view as well, such as information asymmetry and agency problems when dealing with external sources of financing and so on.

Needless to say, there is always the opposing view from Arrow, that competitive firms are more innovative, but the question of which view best matches the empirical evidence is far from settled, and nobody with an open mind would dismiss either one out of hand as 'wrong', and certainly not in all cases.

Re:shady marketing technique

[StikyPad]

The problem is that while the situation you describe may be true for efficiency, in a monopoly there is no incentive to pass the savings on to the consumer, either in the form of lower prices or an improved product. Of course that's not a problem for the monopoly, but nobody ever argued that monopolies were bad for the holders.

But as you say, MS doesn't have a monopoly on operating systems, so the point is largely moot.

Re:shady marketing technique

[jay2003]

In a monopoly with perfect price discrimination

Perfect price discrimination is a theoretical concept only especially in consumer markets. It is impossible to implement. How are would you assess every consumer's willingness to pay? Telepaths? If you ask me, I'll say $3 which is below marginal cost of production for software.

Try to imagine the price Microsoft would charge if there were a single edition of Vista

Considering that it's not going to possible raise OEM Windows pricing on low end PCs without risking new competition, I'll stick with $40-50 for OEMs. The threat of low-end PC makers using another OS which would happen if MS tried to charge them $200 for the OS has a huge impact of future revenue since it would risk breaking the Windows stranglehold on the OS market

The essence of the Schumpeterian view that monopolies are more innovative than competitive firms lies in the fact that a monopoly firm is guaranteed to reap the full value of any innovations it produces, and thus has a greater incentive to innovate.

This is complete garbage when it comes Windows. If there are no competitive threats and Windows monopoly were guaranteed, the only reason to innovate would be to raise consumer's willingness to pay which is not going to happen. Consumers are not willing to pay more for Vista than they were for XP evidenced by Vista's lack luster sales. A small percentage of the market might pay for Ultimate but most people don't care. If MS could get rid of the competition once and for all, their best financial would be to fire all the developers, and move term licensing so would everyone would have to keep paying every year and MS would not have to spend money on developing upgrades.

Re:shady marketing technique

[Ravnen]

Perfect price discrimination is a theoretical concept only especially in consumer markets. It is impossible to implement. How are would you assess every consumer's willingness to pay? Telepaths? If you ask me, I'll say $3 which is below marginal cost of production for software.

Well, I'm pleased you know this, but if you think I was suggesting perfect price discrimination exists in practice, and certainly in the software market, I'm afraid this is a product of your own imagination, and not anything I wrote. The use of such a straw man may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to support your argument.

The primary value in understanding theoretical concepts like perfect price discrimination, or even perfect competition, is that the imperfect forms, which do exist in practice, often exhibit many of the same characteristics, but to a more limited degree. Imperfect price discrimination, for example, can improve the efficiency of a monopoly. Where a natural monopoly exists, therefore, and the objective is utility maximisation, price discrimination may very well be one way of improving the outcome.

Considering that it's not going to possible raise OEM Windows pricing on low end PCs without risking new competition, I'll stick with $40-50 for OEMs. The threat of low-end PC makers using another OS which would happen if MS tried to charge them $200 for the OS has a huge impact of future revenue since it would risk breaking the Windows stranglehold on the OS market

I see, so do you imagine $40-50 is the price currently charged to OEMs for Vista Home Basic? In other words, are you suggesting Microsoft would, if forced to use a single price, charge the price it currently does for Home Basic? Do you believe this would also apply in the retail case? If so, I'm afraid your view is not terribly realistic.

Looking at the empirical data, the retail price of Windows 95 at its release in 1995 was US$209. This is equivalent to roughly $285 in 2007 dollars, which is 40% higher than the price of Vista Home Basic, and indeed 20% higher than the price of Vista Home Premium. Retail buyers of Windows, then, certainly appear to be benefitting from Microsoft's segmentation strategy (as I pointed out previously, it isn't quite price discrimination, because the different versions actually have different feature sets).

This is complete garbage when it comes Windows. If there are no competitive threats and Windows monopoly were guaranteed, the only reason to innovate would be to raise consumer's willingness to pay which is not going to happen. Consumers are not willing to pay more for Vista than they were for XP evidenced by Vista's lack luster sales. A small percentage of the market might pay for Ultimate but most people don't care. If MS could get rid of the competition once and for all, their best financial would be to fire all the developers, and move term licensing so would everyone would have to keep paying every year and MS would not have to spend money on developing upgrades.

Oh dear. Are you actually suggesting that if Microsoft sacked all of its developers, it would be able to continue to take advantage of new hardware, and to offer the features demanded by applications developers? I'm afraid that's rather a silly view.

The objective of a monopolist is to maximise profit, not minimise costs. In the case of Windows, the key to maximising profit is to maximise sales of PCs bundled with Windows. Microsoft therefore has a strong incentive to develop features that take advantage of the newest hardware, in order to drive sales of that hardware, and hence of Windows. It also has a strong incentive to avoid leaving any technological or price gaps which could be targeted by a new entrant to the market.

To take your silly example of Microsoft sacking all of its developers and then charging periodic fees, if Microsoft management were actually mad enough to do this, it would in the first

Re:shady marketing technique

[Ravnen]

Oh yes, I certainly didn't mean to imply that monopolies are necessarily socially optimal. The two principal objections to monopolies involve efficiency and fairness. Price discrimination by a monopoly is one way to potentially improve efficiency, but it actually worsens fairness, which is already worse in a monopoly market than in a competitive one.

The impact of monopolies or near monopolies on innovation is also an interesting issue, particularly in light of the large number of dominant firms in IT industries, and a more ambiguous one. There are strong arguments on both sides, and it's not as simple as something like fairness, where monopolies are unambiguously bad.

Re:shady marketing technique

[jay2003]

Well, I'm pleased you know this, but if you think I was suggesting perfect price discrimination exists in practice, and certainly in the software market, I'm afraid this is a product of your own imagination, and not anything I wrote. The use of such a straw man may be emotionally satisfying, but it doesn't do anything to support your argument.

Now that you've made clear your posts apply only to magic economist land and not real world, the rest of us can safely ignore you. Those of us who live in the real world know that the Windows monopoly causes massive dis-utility through security holes, viruses, spyware, blue screens of death and general array of annoying computer problems Windows users face. If operating systems were actually a competitive market that wasn't dominated by a giant network effort, Windows could not survive in its present crappy form. It would have to evolve to a decent OS or die.

Going back to the point of this thread, most Mac users running Parallels or Linux users running VMWare do not value Windows enough to pay for overpriced Vista Ultimate. In a competitive market, any OS producer would gladly take $100 from the occasional virtualization user. In fact copies for virtualization ought to be cheaper than full copies since those users clearly don't value Windows much if they want to run it in VM rather than a primary OS.

Virtualization - for the OS that can't multitask

[glamb]

VMWare is great - you create all these little servers running one app each. OR you could run an OS that multitasks properly like one of the fine UNIX OS's from Sun, IBM or HP.

Yes, I know it has other uses, but the main one is to replace the hundreds of shitty little 1RU Windows boxen in the computer room

Linux is the same way

[Skapare]

The virtualizable version of Linux costs 2 and 3 times as much as the non-virtualizable version of Linux. Additionally, Linux has a restriction that each copy may only be running on one machine or disk drive at a time.

Re:Linux is the same way

[rkcth]

What are you talking about? When you say "linux" do you mean RHEL?

Re:Linux is the same way

[Hatta]

Hear that? It's the joke flying over your head. Linux costs $0, so the virtualizable version of linux costs 3*$0=$0. Also, each copy can only exist on one drive at a time.

Re:Linux is the same way

[MoxFulder]

Oh yeah? Well in MY surreal parallel universe, all dogs are green!!!

Size Matters?

[NickFortune]

Right. Because it's obviously that miniscule proportion of people who a) want to virtualise and b) won't just ignore the EULA that is responsible for the "lack of popularity".

Which, (assuming sarcasm on your part), wouldn't rule out the virtualisation restrictions being a contributory factory in to poor vista sales. I think we can take the poor sales as a given - if vista was flying off the shelves, MS wouldn't trouble with a "fact rich" campaign to persuade potential customers to "proceed with confidence". Whether or not sales is the same thing as popularity is another question, although Microsoft fans don't usually have a problem with the notion when contrasting Windows against Linux.

But let's not get sidetracked. Even if virtualisation isn't causing Vista's sales problems, it could still be seen as doing so, internally. For that matter, if MS were going to relent a little on the more controversial features of Vista, they're more likely to give ground over virtualisation than they are to back pedal over DRM, for example. And there's probably nothing they can do at this late stage about the hardware issues. So if they were inclined to throw the potential buyer a bone, it would pretty much have to be over virtualisation.

Maybe that's what happened here. One faction was all set to change the EULA in the (perhaps slightly desperate) hope of kick-starting a wave of Vista adoption. Then someone else comes along and says "it's OK - we'll fix it in advertising" and the change got withdrawn. In some ways, this seems the simplest explanation.

And if advertising fails to fix the sales problem, we may yet see the licence restriction withdrawn.

So really, I don't think the size of the virtualisation market much matters when it comes to forcing MS' hand in this case. Because I think the pressure is coming from within. I think MS are well aware that it isn't going to address most potential buyers concerns, but I don't think that matters. Ten years and billions of dollars have been spent, and careers will be on the line over this. I think some folks at MS are starting to clutch at straws. Virtualisation must look very tempting to them.

Re:Size Matters?

[drsmithy]

Which, (assuming sarcasm on your part), wouldn't rule out the virtualisation restrictions being a contributory factory in to poor vista sales.

Certainly. However, I think it's safe to assume - as my sarcasm intended - that EULA-limited virtualisation is only something a tiny minority of users would take into account.

(Especially since a quite reasonable interpretation of the EULA doesn't prevent you from, say, virtualising a copy of Vista on your Mac running OS X - ie: the most common end-user virtualisation scenario.)

I think we can take the poor sales as a given - if vista was flying off the shelves, MS wouldn't trouble with a "fact rich" campaign to persuade potential customers to "proceed with confidence". Whether or not sales is the same thing as popularity is another question, although Microsoft fans don't usually have a problem with the notion when contrasting Windows against Linux.

As with Office, Microsoft's biggest competitor to Vista is Windows XP. Vista sales are slow not because it is "bad", but because XP is well and truly "good enough". Hence, the take-up rate of Vista is basically that of new/replacement PC sales.

But let's not get sidetracked. Even if virtualisation isn't causing Vista's sales problems, it could still be seen as doing so, internally. For that matter, if MS were going to relent a little on the more controversial features of Vista, they're more likely to give ground over virtualisation than they are to back pedal over DRM, for example. And there's probably nothing they can do at this late stage about the hardware issues. So if they were inclined to throw the potential buyer a bone, it would pretty much have to be over virtualisation.

Not really much of a bone. The proportion of customers such an annoucement would sway is miniscule by any reasonable argument. I don't think even the craziest of sales droids believe that a meaningful (hell, even statistically valid) portion of their userbase is holding back because of perceived problems with virtualising certain versions of Vista.

Re:Size Matters?

[NickFortune]

Vista sales are slow not because it is "bad", but because XP is well and truly "good enough". Hence, the take-up rate of Vista is basically that of new/replacement PC sales.

Of course, if sales are slow that doesn't mean that Vista is "good", either, All it means is that it is "not selling". (Try this at home, kids! Put "quotes" where they're not "needed").

I don't think even the craziest of sales droids believe that a meaningful (hell, even statistically valid) portion of their userbase is holding back because of perceived problems with virtualising certain versions of Vista.

Which is fair enough, except that someone at Microsoft was prepared to change the EULA. A decision that was then reversed in favour of an advertising campaign. Like I say, I think someone is getting desperate.

I don't think it's a sales droid either. The pressure is going to descend on a subset of those managers responsible for Vista design and development. The ones that inhabit The Scapegoat Zone.

Either way, it's interesting.

WTF? don't need to agree license to USE Free soft

[squidsuk]

And that's a lie too. You're not the owner. You agree with the license again and need to follow it to use free software.

Common misconception, that, and Windows installers that present the GPL for click-agreement tend to perpuate it.

However, there is NO NEED to agree to the license to USE Free software, and there is no contract and no obligation to anyone arising from the simple use of Free software. How could there be? You might have got it from a third-party, not from the maintainer, and anyway with Free software there isn't really any concept of an "official" maintainer, all maintainers are "unofficial" in a sense, and I do OWN the Free software that runs on my computer, in a very real sense - OK, it may be a non-exclusive ownership, as lots of other people own their copies (but not MY copy) just as much.

Community ownership is a perfectly sensible concept and works beautifully with Free software and copyleft licensing to enforce it, said licensing of course only kicking in when the software is redistributed, since otherwise redistribution would be copyright infringement, whereas private use and/or modification is not.

The thing to understand is that a Free software license such as the GPL is a GRANT of additional rights and copyright waivers in certain circumstances, it is NOT an "agreement" with anyone, and is not at all comparable to proprietary software EULAs.

Contivity VPN

[Andy Dodd]

Just one example of something which has no compatible equivalent in Linux.

Note that I say *compatible*. My company uses Nortel Contivity gateways for their VPN system, and so if I want to VPN into work I need to be running Windows.

Contivity is (in theory) an IPSec implementation, but it's so badly mangled that it seems that no "real" IPSec implementations will talk to a Contivity VPN gateway. Non-Windows versions of the Contivity client are extra-cost addons from Nortel, and since my company (like 90% of those on the planet) is a primarily Windows shop on the desktop, if I want to VPN into work I need to be running Windows.

In theory, you don't need Windows any more. In the Real World, sadly, you do, since vendor lock-in is a bitch.

A real life example

[Anonymous Coward]

is when CPU's from Intel were sold as celerons and wre, in fact, the production over-capacity of Pentiums. The money was already spend, the capability was alreay there but MORE money was spent in disbling this and the product was cheaper. MS have written the codebase and have spent MORE money cutting off capabilities that it already had and are selling it at a cheaper price.

The free market is supposed to mean that this does not happen: you have the marginal cost. So in both cases, these show that the free market does NOT operate, despite "keeping the government out of our business".

However, unlocking the potential of the CPU isn't illegal. For software, it is.

THAT is where the problem comes in:

a) demonstrably not a free market
and even if that doesn't disturb you
b) givernment force is spent on forcing you to obey MS's wishes.

Re:A real life example

[Rakishi]

I don't see why this would not happen in a free market. By your logic any time a company uses research from a higher end product to make a lower end product it's "bad." So essentially you find that almsot every single company in existence is somehow not in a free market according to you.

A company in a free market wishes to maximize profits, thats all. Let's say that if they sold their full product it would get 1000 sales and have an optimal cost of $500 (ie: maximum profit, etc.) they would make $500,000. If on the other hand they also sold a second crippled version they may sell 500 of the low end version for say $300 and 700 of the high end version for $600. The total profit is $570,000. This is because more people can afford this lower end version and find no problems with the missing features while the higher end version is still desirable.

It may even be that with two version BOTH can now be sold for less than if only a single full version was sold.

Re:A real life example

[rollingcalf]

In a free market, companies are free to sell what they what at whatever price.

The problem is that it is illegal for you buy an artificially dumbed-down software product and tweak, patch, or hack it to make it perform like the fully functional version. Doing that would not be illegal in a free market.

FYI: Parallels blows...

[Anonymous Coward]

My Windows XP VM BSOD's if I try to use Altera Quartus II v7.1 and a USB Blaster to reprogram a CPLD on an embedded system more than a few times. It's really pissing me off and raising my interest in VMware's competing product. Sorry, I do real work, guys. I'm not just a fanboi trying to play WoW on my Mac or some cube drone editing TPS reports in MS Word, for which Parallels would be adequate I suppose.

Re:FYI: Parallels blows...

[MoxFulder]

Hey, I use Quartus II 7.1 as well, with an FPGA board. The the only program that prevents me from living in Ubuntu full-time. I have had no problems with the USB Blaster under XP, either running native or virtualized under QEMU, on a Linux host. I can't recommend QEMU enough!

Re:FYI: Parallels blows...

[Zantetsuken]

Peronsally I prefer "innotek VirtualBox" - iirc, its based on QEMU, but comes out of the box with easy to use wizards for setting up vm's, which I found easier to use than the free VMWare Server offering. Fairly easy to setup on Windows and Debian. The only thing I don't like is no emulation of x64 processors, but I'm willing to give that up for more user-friendliness since it only means going and downloading an x86 version of whatever guest OS I want to run...

Wikipedia
Official

Re:FYI: Parallels blows...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet, I'll check it out! Thanks for the tip!

Just lost a sale

[WebHostingGuy]

This is funny because I wasn't going to buy a version of Vista at all.

But when I saw MS was going to let you virtualize the lower rung I changed my mind. I was going to load a purchased copy in my Mac. Changing their mind lost my sale.

Oh well.

Re:Just lost a sale

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh well.
 
don't fool yourself, they're probably saying the same thing about you.

Re:Just lost a sale

[bill_mcgonigle]

But when I saw MS was going to let you virtualize the lower rung I changed my mind. I was going to load a purchased copy in my Mac. Changing their mind lost my sale.

If you're not buying software assurance and a $100K Exchange server software stack, they don't really care.

I just don't get you guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

As the senior IS manager for my company with duties running from web development to full network administration and support I just don't get it. In five years I have not had a single MS computer fail, not one, due to software issues. We run a full gamut of network based accounting software, CRM, SQL and other databases, Adobe products from multiple areas of their line-up, office productivity, etc. This goes for our multiple servers in multiple cities.

As a power home user with multiple PCs I can say exactly the same... no failures or problems, no crashes or MS related BSODs. I game, I surf, I do audio and video editing, and a littany of other tasks using multiple sofware packages. I haven't reloaded a home PC due to problems since XP came out, not one damn time.

What are you people doing wrong??? A knowledgeable home user or IT staff simply maintains their PC regularly... patches, proper security protocols and infrastructure (software and hardware), file system maintenance, etc. WTF is wrong with all you dorks? This is not brain surgery. Image it right, design your systems right, test it right, secure it correctly, deploy it, then maintain it under reasonable but solid standard practices.

And our users use multiple IM programs, surf regularly and quite wildly, etc. And not one damn crash or failure.

Sure, you get a few quibbles with software functions, might have to close out and restart an app every few days or weeks, but that's it. And this is true of any OS/Software combination that I am aware of.

It's not perfect, and a nice niche of the *nix geek market surely loves to provide virii kits or write up their own to spite their hated MS enemy, but ultimately it's functional software and when maintained properly it just works.

If I go Mac I cut down my productivity by at least 1/2 in a business environment and it would sit like a cold stone, never on, at home because there isn't shit for software for it when compared to PCs. And it's more expensive to boot with less hardware options. No thanks.

If I go *nix in any flavor it gets even worse. Unreliable and disparate code bases open in the wild for all to see and modify, little or no proper support, limited choices for software in any class or type, hardware limitations, and on and on. Interoperability withe the bulk of the PC centric business world is low on the user end to boot. No thanks.

I seriously doubt I am an exception to the rule here, nor is my company. Hell, when I worked for SF and IP the bulk of back and front end PC problems with MS software could be traced back to IS/IT itself rather than users or software or MS... bad practices, bad policies, bad development of images and infrastructure, etc. In the case of IP you coudl extend that further to mandated but seriously outdated and minimally interoperable *nix based software required by the NRC and other fed orgs. And that's in the days of fracken NT 3 and 4 as well as 95 and 98 (when MS software genuinly could suck at times)

Re:I just don't get you guys...

[fzammett]

You lost me at "As the senior IS manager for my company with duties running from web development to full network administration" ... any MANAGER doing all these duties is either (a) a shitty-ass manager who can't maintain staff longer than the time it takes to piss them off each day, or (b) a shitty-ass developer/admin who smarter people than you pushed into management with the hopes that you'd never again develop software or administer a network (they failed).

Either way, your an asshat.

That aside though, because I've got a brief spot of downtime in my workload, I'll even answer your points more legitimately (even though I've already summed it all up perfectly well)... and before I do, I'll tell you I basically like Windows, XP anyway, and am not a huge fan of Linux (never seems to work right for me no matter how much time and energy I put into it)...

1. I agree, I've had virtually no trouble with XP for a few yeas now. I can't even remember the last time I saw a BSOD, or any crash I couldn't directly attribute to a single application. I also agree that if you maintain your machine with any semblance of brains, this stability will likely continue indefinitely. I further agree that in my experience, I've had just as much trouble in terms of stability with various Linux distros than I've had with Windows, in fact more so.

2. Declaring that *nix "geeks" are the virus writters on Windows is pretty stupid. In fact, knowing some people as I do, I'd go so far as to say that very few malware writers are doing so to make Windows look bad and *nix look good. VERY few.

3. Not to be a defender of Mac's, because I don't honestly have a ton of experience with them, but ... "If I go Mac I cut down my productivity by at least 1/2 in a business environment..." Why? Most business users have frankly very limited, well-defined needs which can be met perfectly well on a Mac. OpenOffice will take care of most of it actually. Add Firefox/Thunderbird and a few other solid pieces of software and 99% of what they need is covered. "...it would sit like a cold stone, never on, at home because there isn't shit for software for it when compared to PCs..." ... Well, again, most typical home users would find 99% of what they need available on a MAC, unless your referring to games, which is the only place your comments stand.

4. "If I go *nix in any flavor it gets even worse. Unreliable and disparate code bases open in the wild for all to see and modify..." ... err, that's kind of the whole point. Your right, there are some terrible open-source code bases out there, but for all the troubles I've personally had with Linux, that's not one of the poor code bases. Neither are the major open-source projects like OpenOffice, Firefos, GIMP, etc. These are fantastically good projects with solid code bases, there's just no denying that.

5. "...limited choices for software in any class or type..." ... Just just absolutely false. There is a plethora of choice in virtually any category you can name. Oh, I'll grant you a lot of it isn't very good, but that's true of Windows too. I absolutey defy you to name more than one category or need that you can't find a suitable open-source app for. You *may* come up with one, even that's hard to believe, but not two or more, I guarantee that.

6. "...hardware limitations..." ... Haven't been keeping up with the state of Vista, have you? I've had as much trouble as anyone with Linux hardware support (why the hell can't I, even with Fedora Core 7, get my Altansic L1 NIC to work?!?), but Vista is almost as bad. Anything before Vista has had a lot of years to develop, so it's not a completely fair comparison.

7. "Interoperability withe the bulk of the PC centric business world is low on the user end to boot." ... Really? I deal with people all the time who are 100% Linux-based and I can't remember the last time they couldn't

Re:I just don't get you guys...

[curmi]

If I go Mac I cut down my productivity by at least 1/2 in a business environment and it would sit like a cold stone, never on, at home because there isn't shit for software for it when compared to PCs. And it's more expensive to boot with less hardware options. No thanks.

This is a joke, yeah? I mean, productivity reduced by 1/2? Have you actually used a Mac?

I work with a Mac in a business environment, as do many other people I know in different companies. Mixed environments that include Windows. Most Mac users find they're more productive on their macs - things "just work", there is more consistency in application interfaces, apps don't crash as often, and generally the whole experience is more enjoyable. As developer machines, they are superb. Many developers I know have moved from Windows or Linux to them.

As for software, apart from games there is just about everything anyone needs for business on a Mac. We use Microsoft Office, we have Keynote, Pages, Adobe products galore. The OS uses open standards for communication, so we're able to send and receive stuff from Windows users and generally have no difficulties. And as said, we're more productive.

I read a bit more in to what you are saying. You're limited in your abilities - you can only work on Windows and never bothered to learn other operating systems. As such, new things scare you. You won't have as much control - in fact, you won't be the "expert" any more. Can you spell "job security"?

Re:I just don't get you guys...

[Anonymous Coward]

there is more consistency in application interfaces

haha

generally the whole experience is more enjoyable.

hahaha

As developer machines, they are superb.

hahahaHAHA

We use Microsoft Office

hahahaHAHAHAHA

Adobe products galore.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Exceptions for software testers?

[TheNicestGuy]

This is the first I've heard of this EULA restriction, and it begs a question. Software developers often use a virtualized environment for far, far easier testing of their software on multiple platforms. Do they get a different EULA that allows them to run the low-priced editions in a VM? If they're making consumer software, it would be awfully silly to deny them that convenience or force them to test on a Vista edition that few of their customers would use. Maybe you get a completely different license if you get Vista through MDSN? Which would legally mean, I presume, that a small-time developer who didn't want to pony up for an MSDN subscription and just bought a couple Vista editions at his local store would still not be allowed to virtualize for testing?

Re:Exceptions for software testers?

[Anonymous Coward]

> This is the first I've heard of this EULA restriction, and it begs a question.

Hahaha, obviously you have no idea what "begs the question" means :) :)

Re:Exceptions for software testers?

[Anonymous Coward]

MSDN is a different licence. You are allowed to install it on as many machines as you like and you are the only user, or other users have MSDN licences. So long as you are using it for development and or testing. Some parts are the dual EULA, ie Office, other parts are testing/eval/dev, others are testing/dev.

Matrix running Vista

[FST777]

Ecol reference

IE7

[Yvan256]

What I'd like to see is an extremely cheap version (even free?) with IE6 and IE7 pre-installed. Nothing else apart from Flash and Windows Media Player (and the ability to install, say, Quicktime).

Web developers (developers, developers) without a Windows box cannot test websites for IE. And given IE's track record with standards compliance, this is not a good situation for Microsoft. I'm not buying a whole Windows box just to test websites in their crummy browser.

Re:IE7

[drinkypoo]

Web developers (developers, developers) without a Windows box cannot test websites for IE. And given IE's track record with standards compliance, this is not a good situation for Microsoft. I'm not buying a whole Windows box just to test websites in their crummy browser.

Yeah, neither am I.

Re:IE7

[Yvan256]

I do have the "Q" PC emulator installed with Win98SE and IE6, but that still means I can't test IE7, and Q is dog-slow... (emulating x86 on my G4, etc).

Thanks for the link. Hopefully this will also work under OS X...

Re:IE7

[Yvan256]

Mac OS X --> CrossOver --> intel only.

Bummer.

Re:IE7

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, no matter what you need x86, because IE isn't compiled for any other architecture, at least not any more. (and no new version ever has been, except perhaps for itanic. which still won't help you). Looks like qemu is your only option until you go intel.

Re:IE7

[bill_mcgonigle]

I'm not buying a whole Windows box just to test websites in their crummy browser.

Yes you are, if your website makes any money at all.

Re:Virtualization - for the OS that can't multitas

[bberens]

VMWare is ideal for development on multiple platforms. On the same box I can run window, HP-UX, and RHEL. Then multiple developers can use the same piece of hardware as a development/build/test platform. For that matter we have different VMs for different builds of our software so that we can write patches to the previous versions very simply. The only thing they can't do is load test as effectively as if they had their own server. I'm sure there are people who use virtual machines in their production environment but I've never met them. I would assume (possibly incorrectly) it's mostly used in major operations.

FineReader, yes.

[rumith]

ABBYY FineReader is excellent OCR software, perhaps the best of its kind. Alas, Windows-only.

Is that EULA valid?

[marcosdumay]

Can Microsoft really prohibit you from running your copy on a single VM?

Re:WTF? don't need to agree license to USE Free so

[Anonymous Coward]

Common misconception, that, and Windows installers that present the GPL for click-agreement tend to perpuate it.

However, there is NO NEED to agree to the license to USE Free software, and there is no contract and no obligation to anyone arising from the simple use of Free software.


"Use" includes "use as source", or "use modifications of" or any sort of use. The license pertains to all uses. Of course the typical GPL licence doesn't cast any obligations upon you if you don't modify the software, but you still agree to abide by the license before you *use* it.

Check your facts.

Desperate to see this one in court

[Budenny]

Prosecution: he installed this OS in an unauthorized fashion, prohibited by the EULA.

Defense: Once he has bought it, you cannot tell him what to do with it.

Prosecution: He didn't buy it, he licensed it.

Defense: He went into a shop, paid for a disk, and has no further obligations. If that's not buying, what is? Do you think he also licensed his copy of War and Peace that he bought in the same store at the same time on the same card?

Prosecution: And, we claim damages....

Defense: Damages for what? He bought it, he installed it, he used it. Can a book publisher collect damages because I use my ordinary glasses to read it with instead of buying a new pair as stipulated in the Eula?

Well, it would be a fun case to see.

What do I prefer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would prefer the software itself to be free and to only pay money for support services (and perhaps server access for applications that require a centralized server).

Yay, Linux!

Actually, if MS wants to charge per copy of its OS, I would be motivated to pay for it if it didn't place arbitrary restrictions of use on it and if it offered something that the free alternatives didn't offer. Currently Vista both restricts my use and fails to offer anything that the free alternatives offer (er, well, anything that I am interested in using, that is).

I also don't like their tactic of ensuring that they can offer stuff the competition can't by making it illegal for anyone to compete with them. This is anti-capitalistic and IMO un-American. It's CHEATING, and it is economically harmful, and I will avoid doing business with them for that reason alone.

(Yes, I know patents do just this, and I think that the current implementation of patents is also anti-capitalistic, un-American cheating).

It is a dishones practice.

[jotaeleemeese]

Once they have done the work to implement something, copying and distribution sot them close to zero.

They finish a given product and they remove features and sell it cheaper. Tell me other industry where they would do that.

WHen it comes to hardware you start with a basic device and you are stuff in top of that. You add things. That is why a premium is legitimate.

Software manufacturers do not get yet the idea that they should charge for services, not features.

People using advanced features will require more hand holding, while others with more basic needs can always be lured to advanced features if they are already sitting on their machines.

Artificial segmentation is the dumbest idea, conceived most likely by people with no idea how software works and is distributed.

Re:It is a dishones practice.

[Rakishi]

Tell me other industry where they would do that. CPU manufacturers do this routinely, the low end CPUs are the same as the high end ones but get factory set to a lower speed (yes, this isn't the case initially but once production is mature it often is the case). Many business hardware products as well, someone else mentioned IBM. Specifically these are software cripples so that unless you pay the software won't allow you to access all the hardware features you have. If I remember a number of low end hardware vendors do this as well. You get a full product that is crippled after production as it costs less to do this than have two production lines.

Likewise many low end products (say motherboards) are simply high end products with some components removed. The costs incurred by the missing components is likely far less than the increase in cost for having them.

Software manufacturers do not get yet the idea that they should charge for services, not features. No in the delusional minds of OSS people they should, in reality the big ones are doing perfectly well selling software.

Artificial segmentation is the dumbest idea, conceived most likely by people with no idea how software works and is distributed. No it is perfectly logical if you think from an ecomics point of view.

The product is the same.

[jotaeleemeese]

But they have a look at you and price it accordingly.

This is what monopoly is all about, the only way to dismantle it is refusing to accept the shoddy deal.

Re:WTF? don't need to agree license to USE Free so

[cduffy]

you still agree to abide by the license before you *use* it.

No, you aren't generally obligated (except by occasional install-time technical measures, and those almost exclusively on Windows) to agree to abide by Open Source licenses before you can use the covered software, for values of "use" not regulated by copyright law.

Telling other people to check their facts does not in fact make your "facts" automatically correct.

Bollocks.

[SEMW]

Your post would be valid if Microsoft actually gave free technical support with their OSes. However, this is not the case People who aren't making things up as they go along would beg to disagree with you. You get 90 days of free support, beginning "from the date you activate the product" for Windows and "from the date you place your first support request" otherwise. After 90 days, support is per-incident. Apple's policy is pretty much identical -- 90 days of free support, per-incident afterwards.

Re:WTF? don't need to agree license to USE Free so

[msuarezalvarez]

Quoth the QPL:

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

It appears it does not agree with you...

This already exists!

[SEMW]

I can't believe no-one's yet pointed out that exactly what you've just described already exists...! It's a Virtual PC image, but that's easy enough to convert to VMWare. Yes, it's free.

Re:This already exists!

[Anonymous Coward]

And how do I extract that image without windows exactly?

Re:This already exists!

[SEMW]

And how do I extract that image without windows exactly? A self-extracting exe is just a zip archive bolted on to a small unzipper. Any competent archiving program (e.g. 7-zip) should be perfectly capable of handling them.

In a free market

[Anonymous Coward]

with the CPU example, someone would sell "Pentium" CPU's cheaper than Intel did because they aren't wasting production on erbranding as cheaper chips nor are they spending money on hobbling the product.

For software, someone who built Windows Vista with all the bells and whistles has paid no more than MS did building MS Vista Home Edition, so they can sell their "Premium unrestricted Windows Vista" at the same price as MS sell their Home edition but who will buy "Home" when the "Premium" is available at the same price? That this newcomer cannot make an average profit per sale as high as MS does is offset by both the higher sales and the removal of expense in having five/seven different versions of "the same program".

But with CPU's and software, this can't be done: you can't copy Intel's CPU design verbatim and you can't recompile MS's source. Because the government is preventing it and therefore you have no free market.

Re:In a free market

[Rakishi]

with the CPU example, someone would sell "Pentium" CPU's cheaper than Intel did because they aren't wasting production on erbranding as cheaper chips nor are they spending money on hobbling the product. For software, someone who built Windows Vista with all the bells and whistles has paid no more than MS did building MS Vista Home Edition, so they can sell their "Premium unrestricted Windows Vista" at the same price as MS sell their Home edition but who will buy "Home" when the "Premium" is available at the same price? That this newcomer cannot make an average profit per sale as high as MS does is offset by both the higher sales and the removal of expense in having five/seven different versions of "the same program". Uhhm, the newcomer won't make a profit period, assuming they had the same costs of production as MS. The point is that Home sells for less than it would be possible if there was only a single version. A single version at the price of home would LOSE money on every sale.

But with CPU's and software, this can't be done: you can't copy Intel's CPU design verbatim and you can't recompile MS's source. Because the government is preventing it and therefore you have no free market. Well if you can simply rip off any product on the market then the original producer will never make a profit. Of course even without government restrictions MS has no reason to give out the soruce code nor does Intel have a reason to give out its CPU design.

um, they're selling leopard for ANY pc in october

[Anonymous Coward]

um, you know apple is selling leopard for ANY pc in october right?
so, your point will be quite moot in a few months

(ps, i'm not an apple fanboi either, i prefer my os free:)

Re:um, they're selling leopard for ANY pc in octob

[MoxFulder]

um, you know apple is selling leopard for ANY pc in october right?
so, your point will be quite moot in a few months

(ps, i'm not an apple fanboi either, i prefer my os free:) I think you're sadly misinformed. That would be great news, and we'd have heard a LOT more about it. But it's not true at all. Where the heck did you hear it?

Virtualizing makes low-end Windows a Unix app

[gig]

The low-end Windows exists to lock other software out of the PC. It's almost free compared to retail Windows, you Microsoft works very hard to make sure you can't get a PC without it.

However, if it can be virtualized legally, then a Unix operating system installer can be prepared which runs on a stock Windows PC and when it's done your PC is running Unix, Firefox, and a PC virtualizer with your original Windows inside there, running without compromises. Since people don't understand what the hell and OS is and don't want to, you can sell it as a security upgrade, which it is. On an 8-way CPU you could give Unix 4 CPU's and Windows 4 CPU's and it may be much more efficient also while software catches up with multicore, each may still be as fast as if it had all 8 CPU's to itself.

Nobody wanted to kill Mac OS 9 more than Apple, and they still had to virtualize and it still took them forever. It is obviously the only way forward because an application platform doesn't come into being overnight. However with the maturity of today's PC virtualizers and Firefox you can actually make the transitional period better than what people are going through now with Windows Vista. If you run a Vista installer on an XP system you can end up without sound or with some apps not working. If you run the theoretical Unix installer from above you end up with the same Windows features as before as well as additional enhancements.

So what are you paying for?

[Keeper Of Keys]

You do have to wonder what exactly you're paying for when you buy a Windows license. I mean, given that you can have a superior operating system, plus a suite of software that runs well on it, for free. Microsoft's only leverage is their platform's ability to run a wider range of third party software, which the latest incarnation doesn't even do that well.

Re:So what are you paying for?

[Opportunist]

And that's precisely what keeps Vista from catching on: It lacks the strengths of an MS system, i.e. a large third party software pool. In fact, there are currently likely more programs for Windows that run in WINE than in Vista.

Microsoft Fista

[Anonymous Coward]

The fact is, that if you're prepared to accommodate Fista, then you're prepared to accept the pain that goes with it.

Microsof Is right?

[NickFortune]

How about having your monitor OS being replaced with one with a backdoor built into it which detects whenever signals are being sent to a virtual nic and copies the data to another ip address on another nic?

Well certainly, a hypervisor rootkit is potentially a Very Bad Thing. Still, I do wonder if you've thought that scenario all the way through.

I mean, hypervisor subversion might be an issue for Xen, but wouldn't necessarily affect VMWare, for instance. Which is, I hope you will agree, the most likely scenario for inexperienced virtualisers. Download VMWare server, generate an empty VM, stick the Vista CD in an boot. That should be safe as houses.

Not something MS wants to be supporting for a host of naive users

And that's another thing. If your naive user isn't using VMWare, if they have the know how to do something like set up Xen with (say) a RedHat Dom0, and then get vista to install and run as a DomU, then I find myself wondering about your use of the word "naive". Maybe it don' mean what you think it means....

Then of course, we should consider that you don't need to be running under virtualisation to have waht you describe happen. The best known hypervisor rootkit would seem to be Blue Pill, which works by exploiting hardware virtualisation support in newer CPUs.

So not vitualising doesn't help in the case you describe, and the people you claim the measure is designed to protect don't seem terribly vulnerable. So I don't think this is Microsoft's true motivation.

And personally, if I was concerned about having my monitor OS subverted, I wouldn't choose a Microsoft OS for the role in any case. But maybe that's just me.

Re:um, they're selling leopard for ANY pc in octob

[Gilmoure]

I heard Leopard transforms your car into a jet pack. Cool! (unless you have a Ford, then it turns into a blender)