×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the pay-up dept.

Microsoft 661

An anonymous reader writes "Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh, alongside Mac OS X programs, will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems. The end-user license agreement for the cheaper versions of Vista (Home Basic and Home Premium) explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (i.e., Macs pretending to be PCs)." Update: 02/08 17:50 GMT by KD : A number of readers have pointed out that the Vista EULA does not forbid installing it via Apple's Bootcamp; that is, the "tax" only applies to running Vista under virtualization.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

661 comments

Apples moves into VM (-1)

Buelldozer (713671) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929924)

Are obviously starting to make Microsoft worried. Good. :)

Re:Apples moves into VM (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929960)

Incorrect.

1) The EULA terms apply to all VMs, not just Macs.

2) This anonymous comment found here [virtualserver.tv] says:

This does not limit your use of the software in a virtual environment. It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations. For instance, if you buy a new desktop with a copy of windows installed, you can't take that same license of Windows and install it in a virtual machine. This would be similar to not allowing you to install the same license on another machine. Ultimate edition opens up licensing and allows you to use the same license inside a virtual machine, even though the license is already installed on the physical machine.
Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

Re:Apples moves into VM (5, Insightful)

Skreems (598317) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930390)

From what I've seen, this does not just apply to multiple installations. You really are not allowed to install a basic version on a VM, even if you buy a unique copy and only use it for that purpose.

Re:Apples moves into VM (5, Informative)

nmb3000 (741169) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930422)

First, the article should be tagged flamebait.

Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

Well, here are the important parts from the license agreement [microsoft.com]:

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC

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

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM

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

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE

6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
And here [microsoft.com]:

WINDOWS VISTA BUSINESS

f. Use with Virtualization Technologies. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so,
you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights
management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content
or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights
management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk
drive encryption.
Obviously this says nothing about Macs.

It is intended to limit your use of the same license for multiple installations.

The wording does seem to suggest this. By saying you cannot install it in VM running on the "licensed device " it sounds like it just means you cannot run the software inside a VM on the same machine that's already been licensed for it. If you buy Ultimate, they're basically giving you two licenses, one for the physical machine and one for use in the VM. The Home versions do not include this "bonus" license.

Re:Apples moves into VM (2, Interesting)

myowntrueself (607117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930470)

Apple moves into VM?

Maybe, but in a very sluggish and almost useless way.

Call me when I can run OSX on a VM under OSX. Oh and in such a way as its supported both by Apple and the vendor of the VM system.

Tell me that I'm wrong and that Apple supports running OSX in a VM, go on I'd like that. A lot.

Why not? (-1, Flamebait)

willyhill (965620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929930)

Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything? Even the occasional "upgrade" available at a very accessible $129+ seems to be no problem at all. As a mostly Windows user I really can't complain about costs since I got my copies of Windows at $39 or whatever the OEM license goes for these days with a new box. Add to that the few ~$50 shareware utility I prefer to free alternatives and I can't say that I'm being "gouged" as goes the vox populi when talking about the cost of Windows.

If Ballmer wants Mac users to help subsidize Vista for the rest of us poor sods that run ugly beige boxes, I'm all for it. It will be up to them to decide whether or not it's worth it. And if it's not, I'd suggest they rush to CDW or whatever and get a copy of XP as soon as possible. They'll be able to use it until 2011 or so.

And besides, why would Mac users need Vista at all? That would be a direct contradiction of their own mantra [appleinsider.com].

Re:Why not? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930162)

Excuse me, but is this the forum where I can post about a feature request for fvwm?

thank you.

Re:Why not? (5, Funny)

djh101010 (656795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930168)

Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything?
(snip of blah blah blah) Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac. But I can't help but wonder what, if any, direct personal recent experience you have with them. It may surprise you, but many Mac people who don't like MS, are intimately familiar with their products. The opposite, oddly enough, rarely seems to be true. It's OK if you enjoy your Windows systems. Really. That's just fine. But when you then go on to speak of that which you either don't understand, or choose to misrepresent, well, it goes into "give it a rest, wouldya?"

Re:Why not? (1, Insightful)

willyhill (965620) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930388)

Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac.

"Us"? You know, I have lots of computers. They run mostly Windows and BSD, with the occasional Linux box for measure. I don't identify myself with them. They're just boxes with an operating system. They just help me do my job(s). I'm not emotionally attached to them. I find it rather sad that someone would think that buying an appliance makes them part of some elite group of people.

And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point.

Summary incorrect. (5, Informative)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929934)

The summary is incorrect (quite understandable, as the article is misleading for the first half).

You're free to install Vista Home on a mac using bootcamp.

You're not free to install Vista home on any virtual machine including vmware under windows, bochs on linux or parallels for Mac.

In other words, the discrimination is against virtual machines, not Macs.

Re:Summary incorrect. (4, Insightful)

PygmySurfer (442860) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929956)

Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?

Re:Summary incorrect. (5, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930108)

Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?
You must be new here.

Yeah (4, Funny)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930244)

Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?

Like you said, it's *only* been reported 17 times.

Re:Summary incorrect. (5, Insightful)

ozphx (1061292) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930056)

It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, you're not able to play or access content protected by Microsoft's digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption won't work.
Well of course it won't bloody work! If its running under emulation then: a) The system can be picked up and have bits of memory dumped. b) Theres no TPM, so theres no secure place to keep the keys. c) Hands up if you expect the MAFIAA to sign VMWare's emulated Protected Video Path drivers! They use ROT13.... twice!

Re:Summary incorrect. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930176)

I was thinking of writing a TPM layer that would sit in a virtual machine and allow for some Microsoft DRM things to run in an emulated mode. But I was told I couldn't release it GPLed so whats the point?

Re:Summary incorrect. (1)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930058)

It's not just the summary (I read the article to be sure, hence posting after everyone else who made this point, hence losing the karma :-( ), the article is also incorrect.

Re:Summary incorrect. (5, Informative)

umbrellasd (876984) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930122)

Agreed. This clause refers to running Vista in VMs a la VMWare. The concern is that they want you to buy 3 copies of Vista instead of cloning three VMWare images and running 3 machines on one fat piece of hardware. Bootcamp isn't even virtualization as what it does is make it easier to grab the appropriate Windows drivers (for Mac hardware and load them during the install process. Installing Vista on a Mac is the same as installing on any other supported hardware (Intel Core duo + ATI video doe my iMac); it's the OS run directly on your hardware with appropriate drivers. The guy from Parallels is right about his comment because they _do_ virtualize the hardware and give you a VM, but thats not at all the same as the title claim which is "All Mac users pay a M$ tax to run Vista". No, they won't have to and that would be a stupid move for M$. They will be very happy to make their $199 or whatever it is if you are a Mac user and disable enough of your brain to think you might like to occasionally prefer Vista over MacOS.

Re:Summary incorrect. (1, Insightful)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930266)

The concern is that they want you to buy 3 copies of Vista instead of cloning three VMWare images and running 3 machines on one fat piece of hardware.

I think it's more likely to be a case of "they don't want you to buy 1 copy of Vista, install it in a VM, and then put the VM image up on a BT tracker for a billion of your close personal friends".

Gee, can't see why Microsoft would have a problem with that...

Come on guys, Microsoft does enough retarded things. Don't bash it for the perfectly sensible things.

Re:Summary incorrect. (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930334)

Agreed. This clause refers to running Vista in VMs a la VMWare. The concern is that they want you to buy 3 copies of Vista instead of cloning three VMWare images and running 3 machines on one fat piece of hardware.

No, they're not (and the previous EULA - along with most EULAs for most software - would stop that scenario anyway).

This is just another form of disciminatory pricing, like having the Home/Premium/Ultimate split in the first place.

Additionally, the last time I checked the wording of the EULA could quite easily be interpreted to allow a Vista VM running under another OS (just not a re-use of your existing Vista license to run a VM under a "native" install).

Re:Summary incorrect. (0, Offtopic)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930440)

This is just another form of disciminatory [sic] pricing, like having the Home/Premium/Ultimate split in the first place.

Yeah! And you know what? Car manufacturers are just as guilty! Can you believe that they charge more to have power door locks, power windows, and heated seats?

Re:Summary incorrect. (1, Offtopic)

countach (534280) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930486)

Do they also charge more for a car if you intend to drive it on your farm, instead of the interstate?

Re:Summary incorrect. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930490)

The car companies don't put the door locks in then charge you extra to turn them on. There's 1 vista disk

Re:Summary incorrect. (2, Insightful)

Angelwrath (125723) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930264)

Sounds like someone from Digg came to Slashdot to post the article. This is precisely the kind of tabloid-esque, inaccurate title for an article that Digg is now plagued with.

So? (1, Redundant)

FliesLikeABrick (943848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929936)

So they can't use it in Parallels or whatever the vmware-equivalent is... neither can anyone else who wants to do it in vmware or VirtualBox

Bootcamp isn't emulated hardware last time I checked, it is just running Windows on the intel hardware

More a Problem for Linux than Mac Boxes? (2, Informative)

mr-mafoo (891779) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930178)

Yes, you are be legaly allowed to install Vista via bootcamp on a mac because all bootcamp does is set up a bootloader and HD partition and then burns a CDROM of drivers for you. No virtualisation envolved... unless 'They' claim that the bootloader is one ;)

This article should have been under a VMWare related thread. The pricing hits linux users most. (developers with win boxes propably are gona opt for the pro version anyway.)

Re:More a Problem for Linux than Mac Boxes? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930454)

developers with win boxes propably are gona opt for the pro version anyway

Not if they want to do a VM in a legal fashion.

By far more Windows admins/devs are running LEGAL Windows VMs than any Linux users.

Let's not get out of hand and cry "why is evil MS beating on me". It's old, it's a lie and it shows how pathetic people from the Mac and Linux camps are.

MAC users who want to run Vista Home (1, Insightful)

xQx (5744) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929948)

Should spend $500 on some PC hardware with Vista OEM installed and get over it.

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?

Maybe this guy knows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEvYETWVK6M

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929994)

I'd say every ethernet user on this planet is a MAC user. Dunno how a RTL8139 would handle Aero, though.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (5, Funny)

rwyoder (759998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930000)

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?
For the same reason I bought Mercedes and then went to all the trouble of installing a Yugo engine it it.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930478)

I have been using this analogy for years. If you want a Pento, you go to a ford dealership. If you want a Volvo, you go to a Volvo dealership.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (5, Informative)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930010)

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?

I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.

Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows.

boxlight

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (3, Insightful)

Tau Neutrino (76206) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930270)

I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.

Yup, me too. The question still remains, "Why Vista?" Why devote that large a chunk of your resources to an OS that spends most of its time making sure you're not being naughty?

I mean, XP is bad enough, but can be tamed. And it's going to be sufficient for any Windows operation you might want to perform on a Mac. I've got it running under Parallels, and it's not so bad.

But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (2, Funny)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930380)

"Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows."

Yes, exactly. Like for me it's Microsoft Paint.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930468)

I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows. I don't want a separate PC machine just for testing code.

But I thought Java was "write once, run anywhere"?

Other Mac users may need to run Windows-only software like Microsoft Project or games that are only available for Windows.

Then what's the point? "I love my Mac, but not when I want to get any work done, or have any fun."

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930042)

Ah, yes, good question. I, too, have wondered why anyone would want to install Windows on their Media Access Control...

Because that's wasteful and stupid. (1)

catbutt (469582) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930144)

I don't want my room filled with extra equipment. I don't want extra electricity used. I don't want to fill landfills with extra crap. And I don't want to have the inelegance of switching back and forth with a KVM switch.

Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a lot of sense for a lot of people, if they were able to run Windows apps on their Macs.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (1)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930236)

Tell me again why a MAC user would _want_ to run vista on their MAC?

There are many Windows users who would prefer to buy Mac hardware to the PC equivalents. Dell and Gateway are poor on design, Sony is almost as slick as Apple on design but the build quality is poor, Lenovo is solid but unexciting.

I have used Macs in the past, I don't consider them to offer superior usability for my uses. The usability factors are optimized for people other than me.

What I don't think would happen is that a Windows user would buy premium Apple hardware and then load a cheapie version of Vista.

The other benefit of running Windows on a Mac is that it does so annoy followers of the cult of Jobs. Its like during the cold war when many anti-communist types would claim to be libertarians, pointing out that George Orwell was a socialist could sometimes cause them to go into severe shock.

Some folk think that the best editor ever was the original vi.

Not all "cheap" versions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929952)

Just get the MSDN OS Subscription and you can use the cheap version under virtual environment! Why? Because it is then governed by the MSDN License not the OS License.

Re:Not all "cheap" versions (2, Interesting)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930412)

You can't legally use MSDN versions for "production" use. MSDN is "cheap" because it is for development purposes.

The point is not that the "cheaper" versions of Vista won't work in a virtual machine, it is that it is contrary to the license terms.

If you are going to violate a license agreement, it is cheaper to violate something cheaper than MSDN.

Surprise!!!...not (0, Troll)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929954)

This just in from the "cutting off your nose to spite your face" department...

What is the point from a business perspective? The result is to potentially kill off an entire (albeit smaller) market segment. Any self respecting Mac user will just chalk up another strike against MS. I see yet another nail in the coffin for MS. Until they try to embrace *nix and Mac users they are strangling their apps market by ensuring that non-Windows users will go anywhere except MS.

Re:Surprise!!!...not (4, Insightful)

pilkul (667659) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930038)

The point is to force business customers wanting to multiplex Vista on their big servers to buy more expensive versions of it. I think the Mac virtual machine business is just a side effect.

That and DRM Bullshit. (1)

twitter (104583) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930418)

The point is to force business customers wanting to multiplex Vista on their big servers to buy more expensive versions of it. I think the Mac virtual machine business is just a side effect.

No, it's about fucking other platforms. With M$, it's their way or the highway. From the Fine Article:

It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, youre not able to play or access content protected by Microsofts digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption wont work.

There you go, kiddies, if your favorite website does some kind of WMV crap you won't be able to view it in a VM. Wanna bet M$ makes sure Mac is not invited to their new DRM party?

They won't be able to follow though with their bad intentions, though. Their new DRM is going to be about as popular as Zune.

Re:Surprise!!!...not (-1, Flamebait)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930052)

Microsoft has never needed the Mac market before. As globalization accelerates, the gap between Microsoft's marketshare and Apple's marketshare is only going to increase, and the value of the Mac market to Microsoft will decrease as a result.

Meanwhile, most Mac users are fanatical and can't be reasoned with anyway. Taxing them to run Vista is just a way to make money off a few thousand chumps before the Mac goes the way of the dodo.

Re:Surprise!!!...not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930086)

The point is, that supporting these users is potentially more difficult and they'll have to pay more staff just to keep track of this.

Its perfectly logical and yet another /. article that perpetuates this idea that we're all a bunch of microsoft haters. In reality, they do some stupid shit but that accounts for around 50% of the stories about them here. The rest is misguided sensationalism from eagerbeaver editors to stir flame discussion.

Re:Surprise!!!...not (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930220)

"The point is, that supporting these users is potentially more difficult and they'll have to pay more staff just to keep track of this.

Its perfectly logical and yet another /. article that perpetuates this idea that we're all a bunch of microsoft haters. In reality, they do some stupid shit but that accounts for around 50% of the stories about them here. The rest is misguided sensationalism from eagerbeaver editors to stir flame discussion."

Wait a minute...Microsoft's main support is their "Knowledge Base" and giving credit where it is due...there's a lot of good information there. As big as they are and with the talent they have supporting Mac issues couldn't be a huge drain. You're probably right about the article perpetuating the idea that we're all MS haters. But, a lot of us have to support MS OS and apps and don't hate them (completely). Grudging admiration can be seen here and there. I can't argue about misguided sensationalism in the least...it is Slashdot, right?

Macs pretending to be PCs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929958)

They made a movie about this starring Hillary Swank.

older news (5, Funny)

DaMattster (977781) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929964)

I just know I am going to get modded for this. Please be gentle. I believe Chairman Gates, when asked about why he wasn't allowing low end copies of Vista to be run virtually, his response was akin to, Consumers do not have the knowledge or technical expertise to run Vista in a virtual environment. Please! I think his statement was English for "You need to pay more money to us in order to do that."

Uhmm (1, Redundant)

NitsujTPU (19263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929966)

Why can't the Mac users just boot directly into Vista?

Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.

Re:Uhmm (3, Insightful)

ocelotbob (173602) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930242)

Because if you only need to run one or two apps, it doesn't make much sense to have to shut down all your other apps just to run the few programs that don't run under OS X.

since when (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17929968)

is a Mac a Virtual machine? Mines pretty real (un-virtual). Really its sitting right here.

There is no difference between it and any other PC. Maybe you can't LEGALLY run Home Basic if you use Parallels or Virtual PC or whatnot.

But if you dual boot what's the difference besides, nothing?

Mac with Bootcamp is not a virtual machine (5, Insightful)

boxlight (928484) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929970)

the cheaper versions of Vista ... forbids ... use ... on virtual machines (ie Macs pretending to be PCs)

Running Windows on a Mac with Bootcamp (Apple's "dual boot partitioning software") is not a virtual machine. With Bootcamp you're running Windows right on the intel-based hardware just as if the machine was a plain-jane PC.

Parallels is virtual machine software that runs on Mac -- in which case Microsoft's beef should be with SWSoft/Parallels, not Apple.

boxlight

Parallels booting the Bootcamp partition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930428)

I run XP on Parallels on my iMac. I'm running the latest beta and I'm pretty sure that additions in the most recent version of Parallels allows it to boot the OS from the Bootcamp partition.

So would this prohibition mean that I could install Vista and run it in Bootcamp but if I booted that same software as installed within Parallels, I'd be struck by a bolt of lightning from Redmond?

Seems shortsighted to me.

And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (5, Insightful)

MSFanBoi2 (930319) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929980)

No, you gotta go buy an Apple PC to even think about running OS X.

So, you gotta buy a higher end version of Vista. At least you can run it on the Mac.

Now try buying OS X and installing it on the box you just built... can't do it.

I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

notoriousE (723905) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930068)

easy? no

impossible? no

http://www.insanelymac.com/ [insanelymac.com]

from what i hear osX runs great on a 945 chipset motherboard and pentium d ;)

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

Mr2001 (90979) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930150)

Well, yeah.. you can do that, and it works, but it's illegal. If you don't mind breaking the law, you can install the low-end version of Vista in a virtual machine too. The "tax" is only for installing it legally.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930138)

"I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible."

Apple has forever locked out non-Apple hardware from Apple OS. That is one of the reasons that MS is a significantly larger player. MS said, "bring the hardware and we will (somewhat) embrace it". Apple's strategy has been to own both the hardware and OS. Microsoft's strategy has been to (mostly) allow all comers. I really can't say which philosophy is better. Apple and Microsoft both have their strong points...secure OS and an acceptable stable of apps vs. less security and a plethora of apps? I loved my Apple II+, and Apple Lisa, and the first Mac. I also loved my first x86 with MS-DOS and damn if W2000 wasn't a pretty solid OS compared to previous MS versions. Today, I run XP and a flavor of Linux on separate laptops. Will I go Vista...not in the foreseeable future. Will I buy a Mac...no way, too damn expensive. Will I go completely *nix?...probably.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (-1, Troll)

hjf (703092) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930262)

MS said, "bring the hardware and we will (somewhat) embrace it". Apple's strategy has been to own both the hardware and OS. Microsoft's strategy has been to (mostly) allow all comers. I really can't say which philosophy is better.
What the fuck, dude? Last time I checked, Bill Gates was the richest men in the world. Steve Jobs wasn't anywhere near. So considering that, I'm pretty sure that MS's philosophy is much better.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

alshithead (981606) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930340)

"What the fuck, dude? Last time I checked, Bill Gates was the richest men in the world. Steve Jobs wasn't anywhere near. So considering that, I'm pretty sure that MS's philosophy is much better."

Ouch! Did I hit a sore spot? I wasn't considering from a personal wealth perspective...or even a personal success perspective.

I was talking about a perspective relating to bringing a successful computing model to the masses. While MS has greater market share, Apple seems to have a greater satisfied end user share. And, again, I'm not sure which is better.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930420)

Per other poster, Gates is the richest mac. I'm sure everyone at Apple would love to be in MS's position with all its assets. At this point, Apple would be foolish to try and unbundle OS X from the hardware. Why? Factors of scaling. For Apple to be as profitable as it is now while relying on users using commodity hardware* to purchase and use OS X, they would probably need to sell somewhere close to what MS does in volume and need an Office-suite or other large software revenue generator. With a 3 to 5% overall market share, they'd have to bleed money for years to do it. Most consumers and businesses have Windows-apps that run well (or at least work), and they've invested $1000+ in their PCs. They're not going to run out and buy OS X and replace all their programs. Perhaps buy new hardware too? I don't think its going to happen (like to I'm a Mac user) but I don't think so. I don't think its a question of if Apple want to do this, its a matter of how long they could sustain the business and keep themselves employed.

* Assume hardware 20 to 25% cheaper and not discount warranties well as the higher cost of upgrades through Apple-direct which add to their profit margins on each order.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1, Funny)

robinsonne (952701) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930148)

"I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains That's not a lock, it's a feature!

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (2, Insightful)

wass (72082) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930410)

I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.


Inaccurate comparison, you're simplifying the situation (intentionally?)

Apple will let you run OS X on any computer it's licensed for, regardless of what other OS's may also be running on the computer. As long as you can run OS X on that computer, they don't give a shit what you do with it.

Microsoft, on the other hand, says you only have Vista rights if Vista is the primary OS at that time. Or you can pay them much more money to play fairly, despite the fact that you purchased a copy of Vista licensed to run on this particular computer. Microsoft is restricting your ability to use the software you purchased to run on that computer, and only let you do so if they're the software in charge. This is typical Microsoft behavior and has been since day one.

So, while you claim Apple is the restrictive party here, they're actually the more open party. Your complaint is only that Apple has a more limited pool of hardware to run OS X, however within that pool you can do whatever you want on those computers with your OS X. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a wider array of available hardware, but they only lets you run your licensed copy of Vista if they're the main player at the time, and won't let you run Vista within (ie, in a VM) to another OS unless you shell out significantly more cash.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (5, Insightful)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930444)

A little history lesson. Apple started out producing harware with their OS from day one. The primary reason is control. I've been using Microsoft OSs since the late 80s but up until lately they were a pain to configure and even now stability is dodgy because of all the hardware and software support. There's a price for everything. The Apple approach may seem more limiting but there are major benefits. Unlike PCs or Amigas they were never for tinkerers. You can do some minor upgrading but they largely come turnkey. If have a driving need to build your own go for it. Two of my three desktops I built but the Mac was turnkey. Gotta say it's been nice and I haven't had to do a thing to the OS except accept updates once a month. The PCs both require regular maintainence. They run more software but the Mac is more stable and simply works. I'm stuck with PCs due to software needs but if you want to talk pure fun to use it's a hands down win for the Mac.

Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (1)

linguae (763922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930460)

Now try buying OS X and installing it on the box you just built... can't do it.

Yeah, because you cannot buy a retail version of Mac OS X for Intel yet. This question won't be really answered until Leopard is released. How is Apple going to release Leopard upgrades to their Intel Mac customers while, at the same time, preventing people with non-Apple x86 machines from installing Leopard. I've read that some Intel Macs don't have TPM chips in them, so obviously OS X doesn't use TPM chips [osxbook.com] for DRM.

idiotic (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929988)

because only macs run virtual machines. lets ignore Vmware altogether. Oh yeah and boot camp does not exist. This is such an idiotic article.

Alternatives (2)

justanyone (308934) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929990)

Alternatives to doing this include:

* mailing a part of your anatomy to a loved one (William Gates);
* using Wine to run a limited set of programs in an almost functional way;
* switching to a different program that does the same thing natively on the Mac;
* using a multi-boot scenario to boot into another OS instead of OS/X;
* using VMWare (does this run under OS/X YET???) to create a VM that runs an MS OS;
* creating a VM that runs Win2K or XP and ignoring the "benefits" of Vista;
* running naked through the frigid streets with a placard reading "UBUNTU ROCKS, BABY!"
* Diazepam, lots and lots of Diazepam (generic of Vallium, for the uninitiated).

Enjoy your happy and carefree lifestyle of free choices freely made in a consequences free environment !!

[ Oh. Sorry. I forgot. There are consequences. Never mind. ]

Running Vista using bootcamp... (2, Informative)

Anubis350 (772791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17929998)

...or any other boot loader like rEFIt is *not* a virtual machine. This only applies to people using paralells and the like and applies equally to *anyone* who runs Vista in a VM (and this was expected a while ago too I seem to remember)... In other words, this is non-news people...

Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp (5, Informative)

RalphBNumbers (655475) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930002)

A Mac running Windows via Boot Camp is not running the OS in a virtual machine.
It's just using the same kind of BIOS-compatibility layer that any other PC with EFI uses to boot Windows.

But, in any case, the idea of paying $400 for Vista Ultimate + $80 for Parallels, just to run the occasional windows only binary on your mac, is incredibly noxious.

Re:Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp (4, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930214)

But, in any case, the idea of paying $400 for Vista Ultimate + $80 for Parallels, just to run the occasional windows only binary on your mac, is incredibly noxious.

Agreed. And CodeWeavers are grinning ear to ear over the new market Apple and Microsoft have handed them for CrossOver Office for the Mac.

(Apple by switching to Intel allowed them to compile Wine with ease, the MS making to too darn expensive to run the occasional Windows binary using MS software.)

This is going too far ;) (2, Interesting)

Beached (52204) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930012)

I thought this battle over Mac PPC hardware being light years faster than Intel hardware was over when Mac started using Intel. Now they can run Vista in a virtual machine when most people would be happy to be able to run in on a real machine without it chugging.

We should now all go out and buy a Mac.

Seriously, they do mac some pretty cool hardware, buy one. you won't regret it.

Re:This is going too far ;) (0, Offtopic)

bigstrat2003 (1058574) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930102)

Tell me again why we should buy Macs? There is one reason, and one reason only, anyone should buy a Mac. To run Mac OS. Your argument about the hardware just doesn't hold water to me, as in my experience with Macs I've found the hardware to be hard to service (all iMacs, G4 PowerMacs), too expensive, and just plain bad ideas (G3+G5 iMacs, I'm looking at you. That being said, the G4 iMac was an amazing design which they were fools to throw away). I honestly fail to see why anyone would ever buy a Mac, and then use Vista instead of Mac OS, which is what you seem to be suggesting.

Skip Vista, install Crossover for Mac (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930044)

Most people install XP/Vista to run those one-off apps, or perhaps to run games.

The obvious Microsoft license-fighting option is just install the Crossover Professional from CodeWeavers. It's not free, but IE & Outlook can be up & running without much fuss without paying Microsoft a single penny.

Coherence changed my life (5, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930050)

Microsoft sees the writing on the wall. People are getting clued in to the fact that you don't need to suffer running a Windows PC in order to run Windows apps.

Every day I need to use multiple linux VMs and several Windows-only engineering apps, but I prefer to do as much as possible (especially email and desktop apps) in MacOS. With Parallels, the whole problem of needing multiple machines is completely solved, and the Coherence feature "just works". I can fit my whole life on one MacBook now instead of a clunky fugly Dell laptop, and I feel like my productivity has doubled.

I can totally see why Microsoft sees VMs as a threat. They give you the Windows apps you're forced to use due to Microsoft lock-in, but they let you get your work done on a good, modern, reliable OS. I can keep using the Windows XP license I already have, and because it runs in a VM I can upgrade my "hardware" without ever getting nagged about license keys. And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC. And I sure as heck don't have to upgrade to Vista any time soon.

Re:Coherence changed my life (2, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930206)

I was all set to mod you up until you said

And as long as I buy my hardware from Apple, I'm not going to be forced to buy the OEM copy included with a new PC.
Yes, you don't get an OEM copy of Windows. Instead, you're forced to pay for an OEM copy of OSX included as part of the system's price, much like Windows is included as part of the system price of, say, a Dell.

Re:Coherence changed my life (4, Insightful)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930296)

Yes, you don't get an OEM copy of Windows. Instead, you're forced to pay for an OEM copy of OSX included as part of the system's price, much like Windows is included as part of the system price of, say, a Dell.

I don't have a problem paying for the software that I want to run - do you?

I suppose if you wanted a MacBook _only_ for running Windows, which is conceivable, then you might have an issue with OSX being included. But that's not my situation.

Re:Coherence changed my life (0, Offtopic)

jcgf (688310) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930442)

I see that you have a macbook. Is it one of the new black ones by chance? I'm thinking of buying one and am looking for people's opinions.

Re:Coherence changed my life (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930330)

Wondering what the performance is like for you running the Engineering Apps on a virtualized desktop. I'm looking to upgrade my iMac G5 in coming months. Would prefer to not have to buy a PC (as I'm doing some work with math-heavy applications) but some of the apps are Windows-only. And keep a Mac on the same desk. Space constraint + extra electricity, etc. Im hopeing a Core2 iMac or MacPro would do quite nicely.

 

Re:Coherence changed my life (3, Informative)

seanadams.com (463190) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930456)

The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.

I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.

It's actually kind of eerie how well it works!

Dear Microsoft (1, Funny)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930062)

Thanks, but no thanks. Vista will not be finding a spot on my Mac, nor my PC. I'm not even going to bother downloading the free, feature-added "Vista: Pirate Edition".

I expect my hardware to work for me, not for you.

Not a Mac Tax! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930064)

This is not just for macs, it is for all virtual machines. The reasons behind this is because normal users (i.e. Windows home users) won't use a virtual machine for emulation, besides mac users, who just happen to fall into a strange category. It was not designed specifically to be a Mac tax.

seems anti-competitive, antitrust anybody? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930074)

I seem to remember from ecomonics that while monopolies are legal, attempting to use it with anti-competitive practices such as price gouging the littling of remaining competition (e.g. Mac & Linux users interested in Vista to run a few apps that they can't natively.)

I question the legal merits of this.

mac == pc???? (1)

OmegaBlac (752432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930084)

...explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (ie Macs pretending to be PCs).
Since the switch to Intel, aren't Macs essentially the same as PCs now?

Kill your early adopters, that's the ticket (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930118)

Good job Redmond, kill your early adopters and sell your software only to the lockstep upgrade crowd.

one more reason not to upgrade to vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930170)

Just one more reason not to upgrade [overclockingwiki.org] to Vista [overclockingwiki.org]. That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac [apple.com] users with. Anyone want to guess what the main motive [google.com]for this is?

This obviously doesn't apply to Bootcamp (2, Informative)

Spaztian (1041588) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930182)

Bootcamp is not virtualisation. You may still install windows on a separate partiaion of a Mac and boot from Vista individually. The special license only applies to virtualising Windows on a computer (any computer, wether it's another Windows machine, Linux or Apple). The title and topic of this article is misleading.

I wonder.... (1)

dahdahdah (999584) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930196)

If one installs Vista (why? lol) in Boot Camp.. How is one stopped from using that as a launch image in Parallels ? I am happily running my (licensed) image of XP in Parallels, by using the Boot Camp image to launch.. I seem to recall having to enter my license number the first time i launched the VM image, but never after that (and it was because the "hardware" had changed (memory allocated was different)). After that initial request both boot camp and parallels launches proceed without interruption. I also read that Vista won't disable itself for a minor system change.. Has Redmond determined that each "hardware" change will make Vista "phone home" ? And thereby trigger the lawyers to send me a "nice" letter (or worse) were i to put a licenced copy of Vista on my Mac and try to launch the boot camp installed image from parallels ? Not that i would, just wondering :)

Actually, you can't run Vista at all... (4, Insightful)

msauve (701917) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930202)

if you believe that shrink wrap licenses are valid.

All modern x86 processors emulate the x86 instruction set in microcode - i.e. they're prohibited "emulated hardware" systems.

Well done (2, Insightful)

Kabal` (111455) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930230)

Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.

1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!

Sounds good to me!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930398)

I don't know about Step 1, but the other 3 work great!

What Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930252)

This has to do with running Vista on a VM - ANY VM! I doubt Microsoft did this just to screw Apple users. Sounds like the anonymous Apple fanboi that posted the article has his head too far up his ass.

Parallels limitations (1)

zerofoo (262795) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930354)

We just started experimenting with parallels, and we got one disappointing surprise:

Parallels is designed for a single user. Each user of Mac OS needs to have their own installed copy of windows. There is no way with Parallels Desktop to have multiple mac users login to windows without installing a separate instance of windows.

Our goal was to eliminate bootcamp and allow roaming users to login to the Macs and then be able to fire up a copy of windows, and then login to that.

On the bright side: Parallels says they may rebuild the software to allow that type of use.

-ted

oh boo f'ing who.... (1)

joeytmann (664434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930414)

Big deal, the OSX license allows for installation on only Apple hardware, no VMs or anything. Atleast with Vista you have some options, even if you have to pay through the nose for it.

Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot... (5, Funny)

IronTeardrop (913955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930426)

... isn't there some editorial process here that is supposed to filter out obvious stupidity?

tub6^irl (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930462)

iirecoverable anotHer cunting Of the warring and personal mutated testicle of are 7000 users hand...don't

Who cares? Run XP instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930480)

Who cares? Vista runs like a dog under Parallels anyway, even with all of the eye candy turned off. XP (or even better) Win2K run circles around vista under Parallels, and it runs most (if not all) windows applications.

I think Microsoft's position on this is entirely valid. If you are a developer testing your application on several operating systems, you should have an MSDN OS subscription - it gives you valid licenses for ALL of the current operating systems, complete with licensing rights to run them all under virtualization, for significantly less than retail. And if you're an average consumer using Parallels to run the odd Win32 application, XP does the trick nicely.

They can't do that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17930482)

This can't be upheld in court, can it? If Microsoft put "you can not run this version of Windows and also run Linux in the same household" in their EULA, that would be nonsense. I really hope they can't get away with crap like this.

hmm.. I vote - don't care - safe to ignore. (3, Insightful)

GodInHell (258915) | more than 7 years ago | (#17930488)

Yes, they have a lovely contract that says I cannot install this on a VM. Okay.. that's lovely - saddly since it's only revealed after purchase once the return policy is voided, is an obvious adhesion contract (a contract with fixed terms that you MUST agree with to use a service), and the contracts sole purpose it to leverage it's unreasonable position of advantadge to force the client into an untenable position.

Translation, I could break that baby in court after thirty seconds of argument before a judge.

-GiH
Just a law student.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...