Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
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.