Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax

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

Summary incorrect.

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

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

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

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

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

Re:Summary incorrect.

[PygmySurfer (442860)]

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

Re:Summary incorrect.

[Yvan256 (722131)]

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

You must be new here.

Yeah

[Infonaut (96956)]

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

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

Re:Summary incorrect.

[ozphx (1061292)]

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

Well of course it won't bloody work! If its running under emulation then: a) The system can be picked up and have bits of memory dumped. b) Theres no TPM, so theres no secure place to keep the keys. c) Hands up if you expect the MAFIAA to sign VMWare's emulated Protected Video Path drivers! They use ROT13.... twice!

Re:Summary incorrect.

[umbrellasd (876984)]

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

older news

[DaMattster (977781)]

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

Mac with Bootcamp is not a virtual machine

[boxlight (928484)]

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

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

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

boxlight

And Apple makes it easy to run OS X?

[MSFanBoi2 (930319)]

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

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

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

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

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

[edwardpickman (965122)]

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

you're missing the point

[ArbitraryConstant (763964)]

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

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

It's quite disingenuous to claim that Apple is being more reasonable with respect to virtualization.

Microsoft: We want more money to let you run Vista under virtualization.

Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.

Microsoft's terms suck, there's no doubt about that. Apple's are worse.

Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp

[RalphBNumbers (655475)]

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

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

Re:Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp

[SydShamino (547793)]

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

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

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

Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com (463190)]

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

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

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

Re:Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com (463190)]

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

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

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

Actually, you can't run Vista at all...

[msauve (701917)]

if you believe that shrink wrap licenses are valid.

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

Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot...

[IronTeardrop (913955)]

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

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289)]

Incorrect.

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

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

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

Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Skreems (598317)]

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

Re:Apples moves into VM

[nmb3000 (741169)]

First, the article should be tagged flamebait.

Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.

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

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC

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

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM

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

MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE

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

And here [microsoft.com]:

WINDOWS VISTA BUSINESS

f. Use with Virtualization Technologies. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. If you do so,
you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights
management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content
or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights
management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk
drive encryption.

Obviously this says nothing about Macs.

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

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

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[rwyoder (759998)]

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

For the same reason I bought Mercedes and then went to all the trouble of installing a Yugo engine it it.

Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[boxlight (928484)]

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

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

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

boxlight

Re:Surprise!!!...not

[pilkul (667659)]

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

Re:Why not?

[djh101010 (656795)]

Aren't Mac users apparently proud of paying through their teeth for everything?

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

Re:Why not?

[malchus842 (741252)]

Sorry, but 10.2 to 10.3, or 10.3 to 10.4 are NOT service packs. The service packs are the 3rd digit: 10.3.2, 10.4.8 and so on. When the middle digit changes, they charge - and they provide significant new features. When the last digit changes, they provide bug fixes. Very simple.

If you are going to rail on the Mac, fine, but please at least know what you are talking about.