MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac

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."

Dupe

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

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

Apple's (not "Mac's"; a Mac is a computer, not a company) license doesn't say anything about virtualization. It requires you to run the OS on Apple hardware. If you want to run OS X on a virtual machine within Linux or Windows on your Mac, that's just fine.

Re:Dupe

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

IIRC, the OSX license only states that you can only run it on Apple hardware.

Since a virtual machine running on a Mac *is* running on Apple hardware there should be no problem running OSX on a VM running on Apple hardware.

Jumping to conclusions, redux.

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.

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

Re:So?

What about XP? What about question marks?

Re:So?

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:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

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.

Re:Jumping to conclusions - REALLY??

Microsoft penalizes competitors in mysterious ways. Take this recently released strategic email [slated.org] from Bill Gates:

From: Bill Gates
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 1999 8:41 AM
[...]
Subject: ACPI extensions

One thing I find myself wondering about is whether we shouldn't try and make the "ACPI" extensions somehow Windows
specific.

It seems unfortunate if we do this work and get our partners to do the work and the result is that Linux works great without
having to do the work. Maybe there is no way to avoid this problem but it does bother me.

Maybe we could define the APIs so that they work well with NT and not the others even if they are open.

Or maybe we could patent something related to this.

This is clear evidence that they (at least) considered using patents and deliberately creating incompatibility to hurt competitors, even under the guise of being "open". Don't you think this virtualization pricing thing just might be less a concern about security (?) and more an attempt to do something similar via the EULA?

W

"security issues with virtualization technology"

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.

If anyone from Microsoft is reading

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?

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

Re:But why?

What kind of Vista-exclusive software are you gonna run?

The Windows license manager stuff.

Re:But why?

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

My own. As a developer who writes an application for both Mac OS X and Windows 2000/XP/Vista, it's great to be able to to development and testing on my single MacBook Pro laptop.

The "defectivebydesign" tag...

... 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.

Re:The "defectivebydesign" tag...

The primary "Defect" here is that number of different Vista versions are being decided by a former toilet paper salesman [microsoft.com], rather than by any sane engineering rationale. There ought to be no more than three; "Client", "Server", "Really Big Server", ala NT 4.0. Cut the consumer-confusing price "optimization", and clone that feature from MacOS (or their own past) as well.

In rant mode, one could argue that they ought to charge you more if you run without virtualization from a more secure operating system, because you're going to have more problems. I'd love to see a Vista install instruction sheet that begins with, "have a competent admin install and secure Solaris-10 + VMWare on your laptop..."

Disingenous dupe FUD

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

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

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.

Not this again.

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.

Anti-Microsoft bias maybe?

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.

Mathew Ingram is late...

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

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.

STOP THE PRESSES!

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

Security by higher pricing

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.

Doesn't affect anything

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).

FUD

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.

Security issues - maybe for Microsoft's survival

'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.

Re:To hell with Microsoft

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:Sick and tired

Can you not use TurboTax? It works just fine on a Mac.

Re:Sick and tired

...and that also works on a Mac.

Re:Sick and tired

There are online tax solutions, and there's the good old fashioned pen and paper approach. You aren't "required" to use anything. Myself, I use WifeOS to do my taxes, and WifeOS always handles my taxes with the pen and paper approach, this includes the messy self-employment tax schtuff, but WifeOS hasn't had a problem yet!

Re:Sick and tired

the problem is that WifeOS always comes bundled with the hardware, and the hardware doesn't always allow the software to work as the user wishes.

Re:Sick and tired

And if you at any point just express the desire to upgrade the hardware - to say nothing of the software - suddenly half your money will be spent on supporting legacy hardware.

Talk about vendor lock-in...

Re:You can't ignore them

Have you tried buying a PC without Windows?

Actually, I can't remember the last time I bought a PC *with* Windows. I buy parts and build, and have been doing that for going on 10 years now. But you are right about MS affecting me even though I don't buy their products. The parts I buy are very inexpensive thanks to the fact that Microsoft broke the hammerlock hardware vendors had on us. Thank you Microsoft!

Re:You can't ignore them

I laughed at this. It is a bit insightful but it is certainly funny too.

On another note the OS X licence agreement states:

"2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. "

So you can't even legally run a normal OS X in virtualization on a PC unless Apple made it. This is a much harsher license if you ask me.

source - http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.ht m

Re:You can't ignore them

I think I still have a few 'rainbow' Apple stickers from the old Macintosh days. I could slap that on the side of any laptop I wanted to install OS X on.

So?

I just don't get why people think "Apple does it" is an excuse. It's still absurd, and most likely unenforceable legally. The only real difference is that, so far, Apple doesn't seem likely to make any real attempt at enforcement, while MS has spent countless man-hours coding trojan horses into their own products to allow them to enforce such terms extra-legally.

Re:Sick and tired

Microsoft: You need to pay more to run Vista under virtualization.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Microsoft isn't specifically targeting Mac users, they're targeting everyone that does virtualization, which is a pretty sizable group these days. I don't support the practice, but apparently I must point out that Apple is specifically targeting Mac users, and their terms are much more onerous than Microsoft's in this case.

Besides, can't you run the entry level Vista Home with Boot Camp?

Re:Sick and tired

Microsoft: You need to pay more to run Vista under virtualization.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Linux: It's free. Run it on whatever hardware you want. Run as many instances on as many machines as you damn well feel like. Treat it like it's yours to keep.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Beginning to understand yet?

(Deep breath) because APPLE ARE NOT A MONOPOLYAvoi

Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.
Slashdot's response: God I hate Microsoft!

Has Apple said "never, ever" to virtualization, or is it just that negotiating with Apple over how to do it legally is not on Parallels/VMWare's "TO DO" list (while they're busy racing to grab the lucrative windows-on-Mac market)?

Anway, if you don't like Apple's policy then it is incredibly easy to avoid buying a Mac because Apple do not have a 95%+ monopoly in the personal computer market - the only problem is which alternative you choose because Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market so even if you plump for Linux or BSD you'll find that lots of people take for granted that you can run Windows software.

A lot of good software is Windows only because, what with Microsoft having a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market its quite hard for software houses to justify supporting other platforms.

So, if a demand for virtualized Mac OSX does develop and Apple continue to block it then Apple will lose business. Microsoft, however, have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market and can get away with all sorts of customer-hostile tricks - forbidding virtualization of the cheaper Vista versions doesn't impact on their income from the "Microsoft tax" on new computers and it doesn't really affect the big, corporate, volume licensing clients much. The people who it affects disproportionately are those using Macs and Linux who need to use a few Windows apps - not only do they (technically) have to fork out for a "full version" of Windows - already 2-3 times the retail price of the OEM version - they now have to buy the most expensive version too (or will do when XP is no longer easily available).

P.S. did I mention that Microsoft have a 95%+ monopoly in the PC market - which is why slashdot (plus the authoriities in every country that has any sort of monopoly/antitrust legislation) apply different standards to Microsoft and Apple.