Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Flip-flopping on Virtualization License

samzenpus posted more than 7 years ago | from the make-up-your-mind dept.

Microsoft 304

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

cancel ×

304 comments

GNAA suspected in death of Rob Levin (-1, Troll)

xaphan190 (1118181) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591599)

Mad Virii (GNAP) Washington, DC - In a baffling move that sent shockwaves throughout the anuses of gay niggers everywhere, federal officials investigating the death of Freenode administrator and posterboy Rob Levin have recently announced clues that seem to assign blame towards the Gay Nigger Association of America. An announcement of his death was transmitted as a Global Notice across the Freenode network, on September 17 at 06:18 JST: 06:18 -christel(i=christel@freenode/staff/gentoo.christe l)- [Global Notice] On the 12th September Rob Levin, known to many as Freenode's lilo, was hit by a car while riding his bike. He suffered head injuries and passed away in hospital on the 16th. For more information please visit #freenode-announce "It seems that the bike was impacted by a large pink bus in the shape of a hypodermic phallus," an inside source stated. "Levin's carcass was penetrated anally by the hood ornament, and it took a team of coroners to remove the several gallons of what could only be described as seminal fluid from the victim." EMTs on the scene say Levin's body was covered with open sores. The GNAA reaction was astonishing. "We have stuck alot of things up Rob Levin's ass in our time, but we maintain innocence," stated GNAA president timecop, fingers crossed."Even when driving a bus up some nigger's ass was fashionable, the GNAA never took part in it." Later on at the Rob Levin's Death after-party, GNAA member madvirii exclaimed "OH LAWD IZ DAT SUM DEAD FREENODE ADMIN?" and there was liberal lolling.

It's obvious (5, Informative)

GFree (853379) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591629)

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

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

Re:It's obvious (3, Interesting)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591651)

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

Re:It's obvious (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592113)

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

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

UAC for management (5, Funny)

vdboor (827057) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591957)

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

Re:It's obvious (3, Funny)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592045)

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

Re:It's obvious (2, Funny)

fbjon (692006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592063)

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

Re:It's obvious (0, Flamebait)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592089)

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

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

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

Re:It's obvious (1)

beardz (790974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592203)

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

How long until... (2, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592151)

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

I'm not sure I fully understand the article (3, Interesting)

wallyhall (665610) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591641)

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

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592259)

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

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592389)

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

Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592447)

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

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

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

Why bother? (1, Interesting)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591647)

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

Re:Why bother? (3, Informative)

l3mr (1070918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591689)

For games, maybe?

Re:Why bother? (3, Informative)

crhylove (205956) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591707)

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

There are however some AWESOME Linux native games:

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

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

Re:Why bother? (1, Flamebait)

idesofmarch (730937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591819)

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

Re:Why bother? (2, Informative)

l3mr (1070918) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591915)

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

Re:Why bother? (2, Insightful)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591997)

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

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

Re:Why bother? (2, Insightful)

penix1 (722987) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592323)

One OS == One machine is history.


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

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

B.

Re:Why bother? (2, Informative)

Kyojin (672334) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592065)

See also:

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

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

Also check the package list in Ubuntu etc.

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

Re:Why bother? (2, Funny)

pallmall1 (882819) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591709)

For games, maybe?
Get a console, maybe?

Re:Why bother? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19591907)

For games, maybe?

Since we're comparing *Ubuntu* with Windows (and not Mac, where things are a lot more bearable), I'd like to list some of the games I can't play on Ubuntu:

Microsoft Office
The completely entirety of Adobe Creative Suite (that includes Photoshop).
and more: 3DSMax, FL Studio, Fine Reader etc.

Total and definitive show-stopper right there.

And if someone tries to pitch me the open source alternative (some of which are nice, if considered *on their own* however) as "exactly the same thing or better", I'll punch him in the face.

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

Re:Why bother? (4, Informative)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592069)

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

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

3DSMax
Apparently it doesn't run too well under wine, however there are alternatives like Maya (non-opensource alternative, just like you wanted) or Blender (once was closed-source software).

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

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

Disclaimer: I run Windows XP and have Ubuntu setup for Apache/PHP testing (production server on CentOS).
The fact you run only servers with Linux shows, it's quite apparent you have no knowledge on running those applications under Linux.

Re:Why bother? (1)

fistynuts (457323) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592401)

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

Re:Why bother? (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592399)

Games?
Let me help with a possible translation.

threat of hypervisor malware
If we read this as:

threat of users employing a hypervisor as a man-in-the-middle to intercept traffic between the guest (Windows) and the host (Linux). Of course, this would be for the purposes of personal edification and private curiosity. Some discovery of the shenanigans employed to maintain the slaver^W"intellectual property" of the guest OS would be an unfortunate side-effect.
then the reason for the clanging sound of the sphincter trying to open, slamming shut, and then opening again may be more clear.

Re:Why bother? (3, Funny)

carpe_noctem (457178) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591701)

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

Re:Why bother? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592061)

Indeed ..... I remember back in the days, when it used to be the Gentoo users who were the ones who made out that their OS was so amazing, as if it had something unique. At least Gentoo was easy to muck up, so anyone who actually survived the process deserved some sort of respect, even if it was only the grudging sort (cf. extreme sports enthusiasts; anyone who actually runs a marathon or climbs a mountain when there's obviously no good reason to do so has got to be at least slightly hardcore) Nowadays, it's the Ubuntu users who rave about their distro of choice. This is more annoying than the Gentoo ravings. Ubuntu, unlike ordinary Linux distros, uses Gnome as opposed to KDE (Fedora / Red Hat also uses Gnome, but they have tweaked it to look like KDE). And precisely because Ubuntu is easy enough for n00bs to use, you get n00bs using it. This in turn means that Ubuntu users comment like n00bs, because they are n00bs. Meanwhile, Debian users -- yes, Dorothy, there are people who use Debian for other purposes than basing a new distro on -- get the short end.

Re:Why bother? (2, Interesting)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591887)

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

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

Re:Why bother? (-1, Flamebait)

TractorBarry (788340) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592371)

Well I'm running Windows so I can run Logic Audio 5.5 and my Audiowerk 8 output sound card.

Can I run these natively under Ubuntu with full low latency access to all 8 outputs on the Audiowerk ?

Er... No.

Are there equivalents that allow me to do EXACTLY what I can do in Logic Audio on Linux - including running VST plugins/instruments ?

Sadly not.

That's why I'm still running Windows on my Audio machine (which is used to create commercially released recordings).

And why yes, the rest of my machines actually run Ubuntu (two desktops, a laptop and a server)

So just because Ubuntu is fine for your word processing and media playing needs don't go thinking it's fine for everyone. It's not. It's very good for running servers, it's great for a basic desktop machine, there are loads of good applications in all sorts of categories but it's got a hell of a long way to go before it's multimedia capabilities are ready for prime time.

And before I get the usual replies no, Rosegarden, Audacity, Seq24 etc. etc. etc. are nothing like the equivalent of Logic Audio (Kudos to the developers for trying but there's no VST support for starters).

Finally I've got mod points and I would mod your post troll but I only ever mod up.

Since when is a license needed? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19591653)

Only if you believe that EULAs are enforcable.

Market Segmentation (5, Insightful)

ZwJGR (1014973) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591657)

Artificially introduced market segmentation.

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

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

Re:Market Segmentation (4, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591875)

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

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

Re:Market Segmentation (1)

und0 (928711) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591911)

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

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

Re:Market Segmentation (1)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592009)

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

The difference (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592127)

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

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

Re:Market Segmentation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592407)

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

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

Re:Market Segmentation (3, Interesting)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591963)

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

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

Sesostris III

Re:Market Segmentation (1)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592025)

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

DUPE! (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19591665)

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

Re:DUPE! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19591853)

This is a different version of the article.

Re:DUPE! (1)

gbobeck (926553) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592005)

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

From the /. article you linked...

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


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

Stoppit with the different versions! (2, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591667)

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

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

Re:Stoppit with the different versions! (-1, Flamebait)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591959)

I've bought the software (note - this is a lie; there's no way I'm going to buy Vista any time soon).

Nice... thanks for letting us know.. a lie. I guess.

Microsoft has made their money.

That's a lie, deducing from your first lie...

They should stop telling me how I can use it.

That's a lie, they can since you purchased a license, and you agree with it to use the software.

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

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

You liar, liar.

Re:Stoppit with the different versions! (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592013)

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

Re:Stoppit with the different versions! (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592073)

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

Re:Stoppit with the different versions! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592133)

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

I think a few old proverbs need rewriting.

Price Tag (5, Funny)

Evil Cretin (1090953) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591673)

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

Re:Price Tag (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591711)

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

No kidding. (5, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591675)

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

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

Re:No kidding. (5, Insightful)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591805)

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:No kidding. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592409)

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

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

So the conflict (at least part of it) is: forbid virtualization on cheap Vista (and thus stiffle Vista adoption as people run their XP on Macs), or allow virtualization since XP already allows virtualization anyway.
Again, why? Microsoft is not a hardware company. They're a software company. Running Windows in a VM theoretically results in the same thing as running Windows straight up; a purchase of a windows license and use of a Microsoft product (for whatever reason).

Re:No kidding. (1)

proverbialcow (177020) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592485)

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

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

Hmmm (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591723)

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

Re:Hmmm (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591889)

i'm so sick of that bullshit excuse. WRONG, you can't just do as you please in the world. that's the kind of attitude that's behind everything wrong in the world.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592295)

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

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

Greetings to Godwin, btw.

Re:Hmmm (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592367)

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

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

Re:Hmmm (1)

howlingmadhowie (943150) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592417)

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

because (1)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591767)

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

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

Losing their platform (5, Insightful)

sucker_muts (776572) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591791)

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (2, Insightful)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591895)

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

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

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591941)

Too late for that. The word is out that "the new version of Windows" (many people still seem not to know its name) is not as good as XP, and understanding is growing that OSX and Ubuntu are better alternatives, apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).
I remember when the ''The word is out that "the new version of Windows" is not as good as'' 98.

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591993)

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592105)

Windows 2000 was released before Windows ME.

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

Re:Losing their platform (2, Interesting)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592175)

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

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

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592303)

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Keeper Of Keys (928206) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592435)

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

Re:Losing their platform (2, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592183)

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

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

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592375)

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

fbjon (692006) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592147)

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592211)

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

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592083)

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

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

Re:Losing their platform (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592415)

apart from a lack of some popular software (though notably not Office, iTunes, Firefox or Photoshop).
Maybe this is why I'm a happy Mac user. Add VLC media player to your list of cross-platform apps, and I really don't need anything else out of a computer. I would venture to think that there are many more just like me too. Throw in the free iLife suite and GarageBand and I have more computer than I've ever needed.

Re:Losing their platform (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19591953)

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

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

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

Apple doesn't even give you the choice (4, Interesting)

ex-geek (847495) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591823)

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

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

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice (4, Insightful)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592057)

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Apple doesn't even give you the choice (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592411)

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

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

Microsof is right (0)

ghoul (157158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591841)

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

Re:Microsof is right (3, Informative)

idesofmarch (730937) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591881)

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

Re:Microsof is right (-1, Flamebait)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591897)

your an idiot, MS don't even give you technical support. please press alt+f4 right now.

Re:Microsof is right (1)

ghoul (157158) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591951)

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

Re:Microsof is right (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592263)

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

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

Re:Microsof is right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592359)

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

Care to provide some examples?

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

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

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

Re:Microsof is right (1)

NickFortune (613926) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592361)

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

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

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

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

Re:Microsof is right (0, Offtopic)

dangitman (862676) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592385)

Bad things can happen when you virtualize.

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

The Mac Threat (4, Insightful)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591983)

From TFA:

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

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

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

Re:The Mac Threat (2, Interesting)

Corporate Troll (537873) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592121)

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

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

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

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

Re:The Mac Threat (1)

Tanuki64 (989726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592287)

First you write:

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

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

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

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

Re:The Mac Threat (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592383)

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

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

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

Re:The Mac Threat (2, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592207)

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

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

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

A few lines of Wisdom (5, Insightful)

MemoryDragon (544441) | more than 7 years ago | (#19591989)

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

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

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

Malware (2, Funny)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592037)

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

Lame (4, Insightful)

palemantle (1007299) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592119)

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

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

Re:Lame (2, Interesting)

Ravnen (823845) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592209)

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

Once virtualization is criminalized... (1)

vrmlguy (120854) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592129)

... only criminals will have virtualization.

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

moDj down (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592169)

dabblers. In truth, ASOCIATION OF

Who Cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#19592311)

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

DRM Thing? (4, Interesting)

Zo0ok (209803) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592341)

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

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

Let 'em shoot themselves the foot (4, Interesting)

GomezAdams (679726) | more than 7 years ago | (#19592495)

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

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

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...