×

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!

MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac

Zonk posted about 7 years ago | from the they've-got-to-make-money-somehow-right dept.

Microsoft 545

ktwdallas writes "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization. Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement. According to the article, Microsoft's reasoning is 'because of security issues with virtualization technology'. Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

545 comments

Sick and tired (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735167)

God, I just really hate microsoft. I'm so sick and tired of their shoddy products, obnoxious business tactics, and anti-customer attitude.

Re:Sick and tired (2, Insightful)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 7 years ago | (#18735239)

I'm so sick and tired of their shoddy products, obnoxious business tactics, and anti-customer attitude.

You know, you're not required to buy anything from Microsoft, if that's the way you feel. And if it bothers you that much, ignore them and think about something else.

Re:Sick and tired (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735319)

Except that microsoft, with its buddies in the US government, have declared they "own" many of the basic ideas in computing. They kill alternatives. I ALREADY DON'T buy microsoft stuff - but they still affect me. So until there's Regime Change in the Corporate Reich of America, they'll continue to be a serious problem for me.

Re:Sick and tired (1, Insightful)

Columcille (88542) | about 7 years ago | (#18735717)

Come now, this is silly paranoia. If you don't buy MS stuff anyway, then this has no effect on you. Just ignore it! But the article/summary are themselves silly. Microsoft has put particular requirements on licensing Vista for ANY kind of virtualization. It has nothing to do with Macs. If you virtualize Vista under Windows, you're still supposed to use higher editions. This is the first I've heard anyone claim some kind of conspiracy theory connecting this to a Mac.

You can't ignore them (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735451)

I'm not required to buy anything from Microsoft? Have you tried buying a PC without Windows?

In any case, just because I don't buy MS products doesn't mean their actions don't affect me. Have you tried visiting the many web sites thatt only work with IE, with another browser? How about opening all the files people create and distribute using MS's proprietary formats, because they do succumb to MS's strong-arm tactics?

The days of being able to ignore "what they do over there" are over, because now what they do over there can affect me here.

Re:Sick and tired (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735477)

I think maybe what the grandparent poster is pissed about is the fact that he is practically forced to use Microsoft products, because everyone else does and OpenOffice sucks HIV dick through a silly straw. Also that MS has the money to make better products but doesn't, and that the open-source competitors couldn't if they tried. Hope this helps.

Dupe (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735171)

Old news, that is a requirement for running virtual on any machine not just Macs. Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

Re:Dupe (1)

Aladrin (926209) | about 7 years ago | (#18735195)

Yeah, we heard about this months before Vista was even released. I think MS said they'd be changing the EULA as well, since they apparently hadn't realized it. (Or, in an uncommon fit of caring, listened to their customers.)

Jumping to conclusions, redux. (5, Informative)

bluephone (200451) | about 7 years ago | (#18735181)

If sounds like a Mac penalty because you didn't listen. They require the pricier version of Vista for ALL virtualization, not just on Macs. If you want to run Vista in a VM on a PC you're under the same requirement by the EULA.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (4, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | about 7 years ago | (#18735235)

So, it is not a Mac penalty, it is a VMWare penalty.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (2, Interesting)

bluephone (200451) | about 7 years ago | (#18735337)

Well, you're under the same penalty if you use Parallels, or MS's own Virtual PC, but yes.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (1)

Unnngh! (731758) | about 7 years ago | (#18735485)

It is a hypervisor penalty in general. I've gotten the business edition running on Xensource, which comes as a pre-packaged linux install cum xen hypervisor. Have also set it up on MS Virtual Server 2005 though it runs like a dog on that system. I don't even think it's supported by either of those VMs yet but it more or less functions. As usual, the /. headline is just flamebait.

Really, I could see a demand for running the dumbed-down versions of Vista in virtualization. Much like the virtual images provided for IE6, it would be a handy thing for configuration testing. Who wants to waste a box on Vista Home, unless that's all you're ever going to use?

So? (1, Insightful)

StarKruzr (74642) | about 7 years ago | (#18735245)

Who are the consumer-level users who want virtualization going to be?

Go ahead, you can take as much time as you want to think about it.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735307)

One word: Students.

I consider that to be a consumer use of Vista in virtualization.

Re:So? (0, Redundant)

mikesd81 (518581) | about 7 years ago | (#18735367)

.....I'm not sure if you're trying to provoke some kind of debate... But What about Linux users What about freelance developers What about beta testers

ATTN: SWITCHEURS! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735441)

If you don't know what Cmd-Shift-1 and Cmd-Shift-2 are for, GTFO.
If you think Firefox is a decent Mac application, GTFO.
If you're still looking for the "maximize" button, GTFO.
If the name "Clarus" means nothing to you, GTFO.

Bandwagon jumpers are not welcome among real Mac users [atspace.com]. Keep your filthy PC fingers to yourself.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

Westley (99238) | about 7 years ago | (#18735495)

Who says you have to be a consumer-level user to want to install a consumer-level version of Vista?

It would be nice to be able to test whether an app works on all versions of Vista without having to have them all on physical boxes.

Re:So? (1)

nog_lorp (896553) | about 7 years ago | (#18735695)

Huh? Um... what are the Business users who want this virtualization? Seems to me one of the biggest markets would be consumers who want their desktop computer to be a Mac but still be able to use Windows (especially for games).

~nog_lorp

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735247)

Thank you! I get the feeling that most slashdot readers are just getting dumber by the day, possibly by taking cues from Zonk.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (-1, Flamebait)

ChoralScholar (1062892) | about 7 years ago | (#18735249)

I'm not really sure why someone would put Vista on a Mac anyway. It's like going out, buying a nice new car, and then slashing the tires before you drive it off the lot.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735297)

OH LOLOLOLZ!! Slashdork is TEH BETTAR than TEH IRC!!!1!!!!one!!

p. Jesus christ.

MS is shooting itself in the foot. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735355)

I have tried running a legitimate XP copy (SP1) on Ubuntu with Innotek's VirtualBox - and the WGA gets the idea I am running an illegimate version of Windows even after I input my key into it (stored bought boxed version). Instead of explaining why it's bad (perhaps the license isn't pricey enough but this is only an SP1 disk so it shouldn't count should it? I didn't agree to those term on the Eula back then:) - they bring up a Survey that was extremely offensive - asking me how I felt having an illegimate copy of windows, what I would do with an illegimate copy of windows, and so on and so forth (they made sure to say "illegimate copy" in every question and generally treat you like a 5 year old idiot).

None of this makes me want to go out and buy MS products more - the ones I have apparently don't work even though the terms on the EULA back then have never mentioned virtualization.

They won't allow even Security upgrades based on this. I can forsee lawsuits coming from network owners and ISP because they are refusing to patch their own defective software and allowing so many computers to get compromised and botnets to form, etcetera. Fine, don't let me get upgrades for greater functionality, but at least give me those security patches.

Like the RIAA, the tighter MS grasps, the more will slip through there fingers. I refuse to be extorted to pay a higher price for software than what I already paid for it just because it is running in a situation they have not forseen 4 years back when the copy was new.

Re:MS is shooting itself in the foot. (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 7 years ago | (#18735693)

MS is shooting itself in the foot.

Yeah well, they got lots of ammo. May as well use it.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (2, Insightful)

nwbvt (768631) | about 7 years ago | (#18735445)

Why would they penalize users for running on Macs anyways? If they are using Windows, they are using Microsoft's product. MS doesn't sell hardware, so how would it matter to them what Windows is running on?

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735549)

Oh, Nick. Clueless as ever and still stubbornly posting at 2. For heaven's sake, someone please relieve this cretin of his karma bonus.
--
Sick of pompous windbags [slashdot.org]? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier [slashdot.org] to -1 penalty.

Your sig (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735697)

Your sig is incorrect. I believe that your final term should be (50*i)% imagination.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (2, Informative)

WalterSobchak (193686) | about 7 years ago | (#18735499)

The title of the article is really badly researched. Virutalization is not the only way to run Vista on a Mac, when using Bootcamp you can legally use any version.

Alex

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (1)

OS24Ever (245667) | about 7 years ago | (#18735645)

Not to mention you can buy Windows XP at Newegg, pay $12 for the upgrade and get Windows Business much lower cost than $299 right now.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (1)

Redlazer (786403) | about 7 years ago | (#18735769)

Or, you could buy a copy of Vista Upgarde Ed (99$) and install a fresh copy using that (install w/o a key, then upgrade the existing copy of Vista already installed).

Or, you could, you know.

Download it.

-Red

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (4, Informative)

SiliconEntity (448450) | about 7 years ago | (#18735655)

Right, and keep in mind that you can install Vista on a Mac in a dual-boot configuration, and then these rules about virtualization do not apply. AFAIK you can install any version of Vista on a Mac, dual-boot, and it's perfectly legal. It's really no different than for Windows users.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735183)

Just run windows 2000

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735363)

Or just ignore the EULA. Its not enforcable in some countries (like the UK).

Security Issues? (-1, Troll)

Jerry (6400) | about 7 years ago | (#18735187)

When has Microsoft ever been concerned about security OR stability?

They are now calling Word2007 crashes resulting from malware a FEATURE!! rof,lllll
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?com mand=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9016401&pageNumber =1 [computerworld.com]

And it's still 1984... (1)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | about 7 years ago | (#18735461)

...when virtualization can be called a security problem.

This is like saying that having a chroot "jail" for BIND opens up a hole.

Or like saying black is white.

"security issues with virtualization technology" (2, Interesting)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#18735201)

Sooooo does that also include their virtualization products? Hmmmm?

This seems sort of counter productive to me, i would think they would want peopele to run vista on as many machines as they can.. Especially if there is a chance they can push a user away from another OS. But then again, they are a monopoly, they dont always have to do what makes sence.

Re:"security issues with virtualization technology (1)

Blahbooboo3 (874492) | about 7 years ago | (#18735663)

Depends on how you look at it.

If you are a corporate customer, the price tag is nothing for a copy of Vista Business. So corporate customers are not going to have a problem.

For a non-corporate user thinking of a switch to Mac but is scared of needing an occassional Windows application, the extra expense might dissuade from a switch attempt.

Win win if you ask me... :)

To hell with Microsoft (0, Flamebait)

Cracked Pottery (947450) | about 7 years ago | (#18735203)

I wouldn't install any version of Vista on my computer if they paid me.

Re:To hell with Microsoft (1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | about 7 years ago | (#18735237)

Someday, you wont have a choice. Expect the HSD at some point to require you to run an 'approved operating system' if you want to get online, or even worse if they go door to door ( dont laugh, its been done before ). All in the name of 'national security and safety' of course.

And you get 2 guesses on what will be approved and what wont.

Re:To hell with Microsoft (5, Funny)

Spudtrooper (1073512) | about 7 years ago | (#18735407)

Take off the tinfoil hat and be realistic. Besides, the U.S. government has never officially acknowledged the existence of 0S/2 WARP concentration camps.

Re:To hell with Microsoft (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 7 years ago | (#18735761)

Coming soon to a country near you [burmalibrary.org]

Burma's Computer Science Development Law 1996 is a perverse model for
authoritarian regimes to follow in this era of globalisation. Far from
''developing computer science", it inhibits this by establishing extensive
controls on the ownership of computers and computer links. Basically, a
government licence is needed to own a computer and to operate a computer
network. Those deemed to be undermining national security, face 10 years
imprisonment.


This will have to happen here if we are to remain on our current course. There can be no other way.

If anyone from Microsoft is reading (3, Insightful)

StandardCell (589682) | about 7 years ago | (#18735205)

Any of your doubts as to why your software continues to be pirated, cracked, or otherwise made available to those who you think have no desire to pay is in part directly because of your continued arbitrary restrictions against otherwise legitimate users.

But why? (3, Insightful)

ceeam (39911) | about 7 years ago | (#18735207)

What kind of Vista-exclusive software are you gonna run? (Especially under virtualization)

Just A Tax On Being An Idiot (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735211)

You've already overpaid for the hardware, why should Microsoft miss out on the action? Mac users are already bent over and lubed up from Apple...

Honestly, with the Mac worldwide installed base falling after a six month blip...do enough people actually care?

The "defectivebydesign" tag... (4, Interesting)

StarKruzr (74642) | about 7 years ago | (#18735219)

... was never so appropriate.

"Security vulnerabilities?" You mean how you can isolate a VM away from the rest of the world and if it gets infected with a virus, you can just shut it off, blow it away and start over?

THAT kind of security vulnerability? How incredibly, incredibly lame.

Disingenous dupe FUD (4, Informative)

The Bungi (221687) | about 7 years ago | (#18735225)

You've reported this previously [slashdot.org], with the same FUD "OMG MS IS TEH EVILZ" slant designed to outrage everyone into an ad-impression frenzy. TFA points out (not that you did) that this refers to virtualization, and does not apply to dual-booting. The restriction applies to Windows-on-Windows as much as it does on the Mac or any other OS. One might argue that the restriction is "bad", but it's very different from the "Microsoft sticks it to poor Mac users on purpose" summary. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't use Windows. It's that simple.

Really, how many times are you planning to run this "story"? Maybe the plan is to stop once the FUD meme is spread to your satisfaction like [slashdot.org] all [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] others [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org]?

There are enough things to criticize Microsoft over. These FUD campaigns are going to backfire one of these days. You can only claim you're being FUD'ed for so long before everyone realizes you're no better.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735357)

I also like the fact that because MS requires the more expensive version of Vista for visualization it's evil / monopolistic, as opposed to Apple which forbids it under any circumstance.

Something to think about.

I think Apple allows virtualization in 1 instance (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 7 years ago | (#18735713)

If you erase your Apple box and install a non-Apple OS on it, I think you are allowed to run an Apple OS in a VM on that box.

Who would want to do that? Me [slashdot.org].

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (1, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | about 7 years ago | (#18735397)

Perhaps over-reported, but it's not baseless FUD against Microsoft. There is no real reason to require a more expensive license other than to prevent people from migrating to other platforms.

If there was a stronger DOJ without the current administration's meddling, at least I would have hope that they would interfere and infer that it would in violation of their monopoly position or 90's agreement.

(Have you never wondered why cell phone companies these days have to transfer your number if you move your service upon request? What if they charged you a higher price to transfer that number than your savings with the new company? Could stifle competition slightly, couldn't it?)

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (1)

The Bungi (221687) | about 7 years ago | (#18735595)

There is no real reason to require a more expensive license other than to prevent people from migrating to other platforms.

Look at it another way - this may be an *incentive* to migrate to another platform.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (3, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | about 7 years ago | (#18735399)

If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't use Windows. It's that simple.

If you don't agree to the EULA, don't abide by it. Write letters, make noise, RETURN COPIES OF THE SOFTWARE TO THE STORE, and generally make a big, fat mess of things. Nothing will change unless you do.

Companies need to know that they don't own the things that they've already sold. That once they've made their money, the usage of it is out of their hands. Putting terms and conditions into an introduction written on the inside of a box that everyone knows you can't return does not make for a legal contract or moral agreement.

Make a mess of things, or things won't get better.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (4, Insightful)

cHALiTO (101461) | about 7 years ago | (#18735585)

I agree 100%. This 'License' business is way out of control. How can they tell you how to use a product in your home? all that "you didn't buy a copy, you bought a license to do only X" is bullshit. I bought a copy, a cd/dvd with a program on it. The copyright owner can sell me a 'license' to modify (extend) my rights to it regarding -distribution and reproduction- (after all that's what copyright should be all about) of such work, but in no way what I can do with it in the privacy of my own house. It's MY copy and I'll use it for whatever I fucking like. They can't 'license' something to me so I can do with it only what they allow, or at least they shouldn't. When and how did this ever change?

sorry for the rant, I'm just sick to death about this 'licensing' nonsense, GPL, BSD and friends included.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (0, Offtopic)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 7 years ago | (#18735625)

Ok, we have heard about this before.

But I have not bothered to read the full article and I still understood they were talking about virtualization. In fact the only person who has mentioned dual booting thus far is you. Maybe you confused the two but I haven't got the impression anyone else did and I certainly didn't so as far slashdot goes it isn't that bad. (Dupes are ten a penny here, with a UID that low you should have noticed by now)

If this was such a blatant dupe why did you bother to read it and contribute to the discussion? Nothing better to do?

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (1)

Mr. Underbridge (666784) | about 7 years ago | (#18735775)

But I have not bothered to read the full article and I still understood they were talking about virtualization. In fact the only person who has mentioned dual booting thus far is you. Maybe you confused the two but I haven't got the impression anyone else did and I certainly didn't so as far slashdot goes it isn't that bad. (Dupes are ten a penny here, with a UID that low you should have noticed by now)

Others have pointed out bootcamp as well. I'm sure the OP's point is that, given the existence of bootcamp and the fact that this restriction applies to non-Mac VMs as well, that the summary is completely deceptive as this has nothing to do with Macs. He's making the assumption that since this erroneous story has been reported approximately 27 times over the last few months that it must be an intentional FUD campaign.

That's one possibility. Personally I subscribe to the theory of never ascribing to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence. In this case, Zonk is a fucking retard.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735759)

If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't use Windows. It's that simple.

If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't abide by its terms. It is not copyright infringement to copy software you own for the purpose of using it, you don't need permission from an EULA. USA law is unambiguous on this matter.

And don't give me any of that nonsense about not really owning it. It's a myth. The law explicitly distinguishes between owning copyright and owning a copy. The box you buy the software in says "Windows Vista", it doesn't say "License for Windows Vista". Even the EULA admits that you own the copy. Anybody saying that you didn't buy a copy is spreading FUD.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (1)

iminplaya (723125) | about 7 years ago | (#18735801)

TFA points out (not that you did) that this refers to virtualization...

Ah, but he did...

FTSummary: "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization.

(emph. mine)

Not this again. (5, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | about 7 years ago | (#18735227)

First of all this story is weeks if not months old, and a dupe to boot. Second of all this applies only if you run vista in/as a virtual machine not if you install on a mac that also has virtulization (for another OS say). In other words you can use boot camp to boot to your heart's content but can't run the cheaper Vista version in a VM under OS X just like everyone else in the fucking world who wants to run vista under a VM.

I mean what the hell is up with Apple users and their inferiority/persecution complexes? This applies to all VMs and likely the number of non-mac users running windows under a VM (developers, linux users, etc.) is far larger than the number of Mac users who'd be doing it.

Re:Not this again. (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | about 7 years ago | (#18735691)

You're right, I believe this is pre-Vista-release old. I was wondering when I read the topic, but I saw 'VM' in the summary and then went 'oh. Knew that.'

Re:Not this again. (1)

canuck57 (662392) | about 7 years ago | (#18735707)

everyone else in the fucking world who wants to run vista under a VM.

Only because you have to run some windows only app. You know, someone sends you a MS Project document.... Not all of us are Microsoft Fan Boys.

Anti-Microsoft bias maybe? (5, Insightful)

Myria (562655) | about 7 years ago | (#18735275)

And what, Apple lets you virtualize OS X?

The anti-virtualization clause is likely unenforceable anyway *. However, most businesses that use Windows buy volume license agreements under contract, and the contract states that they will obey the EULA. That brings the EULA from the gray area into enforceability for them.

* They know that their DRM system can be cracked easily by virtualization. They might be able to win under the DMCA because of this.

I'm not a lawyer, I just read a lot.

Why? (1)

normuser (1079315) | about 7 years ago | (#18735285)

If your going to install visa using virtualization whats stopping you from using basic?
Assuming you bought the software and hardware you can do whatever you want with them.

Re:Why? (1)

v1 (525388) | about 7 years ago | (#18735381)

Windows has to have drivers that work with their platform. When you install XP in say, VirtualPC, it has to use the VirtualPC video, audio, and many other drivers to work well with VirtualPC. MS only has to check for those drivers and if they're there, they know they're "in the box" and will cry if you don't pay the MS Doesn't Want You To Use Mac Tax.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735447)

You can't "do whatever you want" with software. For example, you can't reasonably install the same copy of Vista on all the computers of your server farm.

In this case, I think that a sane judge would agree that virtualization doesn't break the spirit of copyright (like installing on 100 machines would), especially if your goal is to make sure that some software you're developing is compatible with the Basic edition of Vista. But the reason for that is common sense, not because you can "do whatever you want".

EULA (1)

superphreak (785821) | about 7 years ago | (#18735299)

That's because the Microsoft agreement states that anyone running Parallels can't use the $199 basic or the $239 premium edition of Vista. Instead, they have to buy the $299 business version or the $399 ultimate version of the long-anticipated OS.

So is there something besides the EULA that is going to stop people, like some kind of detection software or warning? Because most people don't read the EULA or care much about it. Like most /. don't read TA.

Re:EULA (1)

Shados (741919) | about 7 years ago | (#18735405)

Nope, so really its only to stop a big company from buying 10000 license of home basic to run something with virtualization (macs have nothing to do with it, the "rule" applies even if you run it on top of another windows install...)

could we have older "news" (1)

rollthelosindice (635783) | about 7 years ago | (#18735329)

This has been known and written about since back when Vista was first released for business customer's at the end of last year. It doesn't suck any less, but why are we talking about this today?

Mathew Ingram is late... (3, Informative)

michrech (468134) | about 7 years ago | (#18735339)

Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot [slashdot.org] before. You can read the *first* article about this here [blorge.com].

Running Scared (3, Insightful)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 7 years ago | (#18735359)

Microsoft is scared of virtualization. All of a sudden, there is no longer a requirement to have Microsoft software driving your real hardware. Especially with Parrallels able to run Windows Apps on your desktop without even looking at a Virtual Machine window, MS, I'm sure, can feel it all slipping away.

Re:Running Scared (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 7 years ago | (#18735465)

Microsoft is scared of virtualization. All of a sudden, there is no longer a requirement to have Microsoft software driving your real hardware. Especially with Parrallels able to run Windows Apps on your desktop without even looking at a Virtual Machine window, MS, I'm sure, can feel it all slipping away.

Why? You are still going to have to pay for a windows license for each VM you run.

STOP THE PRESSES! (2, Insightful)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 7 years ago | (#18735371)

THIS JUST IN - APPLE requiring MORE EXPENSIVE PC if running MAC OS!

Re:STOP THE PRESSES! (1)

the_humeister (922869) | about 7 years ago | (#18735749)

If I only had mod points to mod parent up. Where's the outrage with only being able to run Mac OS X on Apple hardware only? At least with Windows, you don't need a more expensive machine.

not the first time! (1)

purpleraison (1042004) | about 7 years ago | (#18735385)

Microsoft wanted to penalize Mac users over the use and development of Microsoft Office, and this really isn't much different - except that there is no point for a Mac user to use Vista.

I use Parallels desktop to run Windows XP, which runs all current software that I use on Windows (no surprise), and to test web designs in Internet Explorer when I don't want to go to a regular Windows PC.

So since Windows XP can already serve to run the apps anyone would need to run, other than the news factor, Vista s of no consequence to any Mac user.

Why would MS care? (1, Informative)

jamesl (106902) | about 7 years ago | (#18735389)

What difference does it make to MS if Windows Vista is installed on a Mac or Dell? A customer buying Vista at retail for a Mac sends more dollars to MS than Dell does for an OEM copy. It's a good deal for MS.

Never let facts stand in the way of a juicy conspiracy theory.

Hmmm .... F**K THEM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735439)

How about, don't run Vista? Mmmkay? If someone tells you they need it, run away as fast as you can. We got OSX, Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, etc etc. Tell the Microsofties to get stuffed. Don't use their crap. Even if you know you can get around it, pirate etc etc. Stop encouraging them. Don't do business with people who rely on it. Use open standards... Or at least don't bitch and complain about them when they pull their monopolistic BS if you do use and support their crap. DUUUH! Sick of this shit.

Intellectual property (0, Flamebait)

WarJolt (990309) | about 7 years ago | (#18735467)

Fortunately in America we have the right to decided whats done with our own intellectual property. The consumer has the right not to buy ANYTHING from microsoft. The American consumers rationality can be debated elsewhere.

Someone gave me a copy of the Windows XP that runs on Macs. I installed it any never used it.

Lets look at this though. Who are the primary people who use this stuff?

The average user? no. I have a word processor, web browsing, chats, media players on my Mac. I can send e-mails just fine, thank you. I'm very happy with my mac.

The gamer? no. Games don't run well under virtualization.

The Mac guy who works for a business who's backwords management team decided to base an enterprise solution on something that only runs on windows? DING DING DING. we have a winner. Microsoft hopes that they will be willing to pay more. Businesses typically have deeper pockets then the average consumer.

Re:Intellectual property (1)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#18735577)

Fortunately in America we have the right to decided whats done with our own intellectual property

Fortunately, in America copyright holders only have a right to control how copies of their intellectual property are distributed to other people. They have no business whatsoever to control what one does with their own copy. In fact, if Microsoft was to much with my copy of Vista, I will have grounds to sue them for theft and tresspassing, which is far more serious than copyright infringement.

boo hoo hoo (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735479)

man, mac fagbois sure do look for the dark, personal side of every matter don't they? this applies to any virtualization of vista. get over yourselves mac fagbois, you're not being singled out.
 
now go back to your homosexual ways. you're boring me, again.
 
stanley kubrick would kick you in the nutsack for being such limp wrists.

Security by higher pricing (2, Insightful)

jesterzog (189797) | about 7 years ago | (#18735489)

This is old news, and not Mac-specific, but since it was re-posted anyway: What extra features does the $299 Business version offer to protect Windows against security issues with virtualization technology, and why aren't these features in the Basic and Premium versions?

If it does offer something extra then I'm interested to know, but the linked article basically states that Microsoft has "restricted the use of Vista to versions that it assumes are likely to be run either by corporations or by sophisticated users."

So in other words, assuming this is correct, they're openly using higher pricing as a security defence? (ie. "Let's make our product more secure by charging more money for it!") If so, then that's a new one and it seems kind of backwards.

Re:Security by higher pricing (1)

westlake (615356) | about 7 years ago | (#18735607)

What extra features does the $299 Business version offer to protect Windows against security issues with virtualization technology, and why aren't these features in the Basic and Premium versions?

Why not ask the simpler question:

If you want and need to run Vista in a virtual machine on the Mac why are you installing the consumer versions of the OS? This is going to cost you a big chunk of change no matter how you go about it.

Doesn't affect anything (4, Informative)

Have Blue (616) | about 7 years ago | (#18735517)

Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's a set of tools (firmware patch, driver CD creator, NTFS formatter with nondestructive partitioning) that allow Apple hardware to boot Vista directly. You won't violate the cheap Vista license if you use it under Boot Camp. You only need the expensive version for Parallels, which lets you run an OS in a window as an OS X app (real virtualization).

Yawn. (1)

russotto (537200) | about 7 years ago | (#18735521)

First of all, this only matters if you think EULAs have worth outside of toilet paper. Second, the actual language of the EULA is

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

So if I install it on a real machine and then run it within a virtual machine on that device, I'm violating the license. But if I install it on a virtual machine to begin with, the license ends up being self-contradictory.

FUD (4, Informative)

iamacat (583406) | about 7 years ago | (#18735533)

You can not run the host and guest OS of Vista Home using the same key. Microsoft gives you extra permissions to run several copies of Vista business on the same machine using only one license. Nobody is stopping you from running Vista Home Basic under Parallels if you bought a dedicated license for this purpose. In fact, it would be dubious since Mac+OSX+Parallels can be viewed as simply another computer and, for all its ills, Microsoft is not practicing hardware lock-ins.

MS thinks it's a business-class feature (1)

davidwr (791652) | about 7 years ago | (#18735593)

Microsoft sees virtualization as something businesses are willing to pay for. They don't want businesses cheaping out buying the less expensive versions.

As a home user, a very good reason to run my OS in a VM is hardware portability. If my PC dies or I upgrade my motherboard, I want any reinstall to be painless. With some motherboard upgrades, Windows crashes and burns.

Give me a stripped-down Linux or BSD with just a kernel, a VM layer, a boatload of device drivers, and some way to install more device drivers and install, manage, and launch a single guest OS and I'll be happy. I should be able to install this VM host OS, install Vista, then move that drive to any modern PC on the planet and have it "just work." When bootable USB memory sticks and USB-booted motherboards become commonplace, portable pocket Vista becomes a reality.

Just don't make me pay more than an OEM license for Vista Home Basic.

Shooting themselves in the foot (1)

ameyer17 (935373) | about 7 years ago | (#18735613)

If you want to use a strict definition of virtualization... no processor since the Pentium 1 can run the cheap version of Vista because the processor core is RISC and all instructions are translated from IA32 to RISC. Good move, Microsoft.

Security issues - maybe for Microsoft's survival (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | about 7 years ago | (#18735633)

'because of security issues with virtualization technology'


The only security issue I can see is from Microsoft's perspective: if Windows is merely a guest OS hosted on Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or other, it is obviously not the users' primary operating system. Since it is not their primary operating system it is clear they are either not a fan of Microsoft, or even worse, are loyal to a competitor's product, be it free/OSS or proprietary. Since the days are numbered for earning revenue from that customer, what better way to maximize profits from that customer by requiring them to buy the products with the highest profit margin, despite the fact that the customers do not need the eye candy and other non-features the premium versions provide?

It's all about short term gains. Rather than focusing on maintaining long-term growth (Microsoft has already grown as much as they can and they know it) Microsoft has turned from being one of the most customer-friendly companies around to being one of the most hostile; revoking your first sale doctrine rights (e.g., you cannot transfer a COMMODITY PRODUCT from an old PC to a new PC), spying on your computing activities (genuine advantage) and jacking up prices when the customer is receiving LESS value with the new OS (it hogs RAM and processor, boasts slower I/O AND is DRM-heavy). Also, they claim that F/OSS is bad because it does not come with a warranty or support. Well, have you ever read the Microsoft EULA? It comes with no support, and warranties and liabilities are EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMED.

Where is the value in the backing of a big company again?

My company has developed custom software solutions for customers, one of which is an interesting software registration (Windows activation-like - well, more like Adobe CS's, but about three years before Adobe implemented theirs) architecture. We back these works for higher with a warranty, e.g., if a genuine bug is found, we fix it and issue the fix at no charge. Feature requests, of course, are billable (time/materials, basically the cost of doing business) but we don't waive warranty.

IMHO all software companies should back their products with support and bug fixes. Period. Microsoft doesn't; they downplay the impact of bugs (see yesterday's /. discussion on M$ office crashes NOT being security threats) or they take many, many months to fix really major security holes, while holes in DRM libraries get fixed and issued as Windows Updates releases in a DAY OR TWO, despite the negative impact on user experience is NIL.

Again, where is the value of Windows over F/OSS solutions?

Is it any shock they are requiring you to buy the high-end product to run as a guest OS? Of course not; Microsoft has nowhere to go but down, and they are fully aware of it so they are scramling to profiteer as much as they can before they collapse.

So what? Run XP! (1)

klaiber (117439) | about 7 years ago | (#18735669)

I don't really care. I switched to Mac a few yars ago (from Linux, though; I never used Windows), and I just today orderd one copy of Parallels, and also one copy of WindowsXP -- before MS discontinues it. As I upgrade my hardware over the years, I'll just keep moving the (virtual machine) WinXP image from one machine to the other. Because I use Parallels, the underlying hardware will appear to never change, so WinXP should run "forever", no matter how often I upgrade the actual hardware. So with any luck, I wont ever have to deal with Vista, virtualized or not.

On a separate note, is anyone seeing a spike in retail WinXP sales? Just curious...

Not true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735703)

You can run any version of Vista in VM and Redmond can spin on a big fat one. Do Microsoft really think they have any legal recourse? The fact is they are a monopoly and certain software is only available for their OS, that users don't trust MS and choose to sandbox their user-hostile crapware in a VM is none of their concern. The VM restriction in their EULA specifies an additional install, if you install your single licensed copy in a VM instead of on a physical machine you are in the clear. Afterall a license is a license and a normal company would be thankful for the business. Fuck Microsoft if they think have any say in this at all.

fud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735755)

and what about the non-fud version of this: apple forces you to buy a proprietary pc to run their os.

A Link to EULA, anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 years ago | (#18735757)

I'd like to read the license for Vista Business 32 for myself. That way, I could at least see if it something I would even consider running in the future. Does anyone have a web link?

Or is it like Scientology...you can only read the fine print while at sea. [wikipedia.org]

Does Vista have multiple security versions? (1)

GroinSniper (643086) | about 7 years ago | (#18735807)

So if you need to run the business version, that must be more secure. But reality is that it probably has more components and therefore more parts to break.
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...