Slashdot Log In
Microsoft's Virtualization Stance Eying Apple?
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 26, 2007 08:41 AM
from the shifty-glances dept.
from the shifty-glances dept.
Pisces writes "Over the past several days, Microsoft has flip-flopped on virtualization in Vista, with one ascribing the change in policy to concerns over DRM. A piece at Ars Technica raises another, more likely possibility: fear of Apple. Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price. 'All of this paints a picture in which Apple could use OEM pricing to offer Windows for its Macs at greatly reduced prices and running in a VM. The latter is absolutely crucial; telling users that they need to reboot into their Windows OS isn't nearly as sexy as, say, Coherence in Parallels. If you've never seen Coherence, it's quite amazing. You don't need to run Windows apps in a VM window of Vista. Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away. VMWare also has similar technology, dubbed Unity.' Is Microsoft terrified of a world where Windows can be virtualized and forced to take a back seat to Mac OS X or Linux?"
Related Stories
[+]
IT: Microsoft Flip-flopping on Virtualization License 304 comments
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."
[+]
Virtualization May Break Vista DRM 294 comments
Nom du Keyboard writes "An article in Computerworld posits that the reason Microsoft has flip-flopped on allowing all versions of Vista to be run in virtual machines, is that it breaks the Vista DRM beyond detection, or repair. So is every future advance in computer security and/or usability going to be held hostage to the gods of Hollywood and Digital Restrictions Management? 'Will encouraging consumer virtualization result in a major uptick in piracy? Not anytime soon, say analysts. One of the main obstacles is the massive size of VMs. Because they include the operating system, the simulated hardware, as well as the software and/or multimedia files, VMs can easily run in the tens of gigabytes, making them hard to exchange over the Internet. But DeGroot says that problem can be partly overcome with .zip and compression tools -- some, ironically, even supplied by Microsoft itself.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Microsoft's Virtualization Stance Eying Apple?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 238 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:2, Informative)
(http://das.doit.wisc.edu/)
Obviously, there is nothing technical preventing a person from using any version of Vista in virtualization, and nothing at all, including the license, preventing usage of any version of Vista in Boot Camp.
I can't see a scenario where Apple would be interested in becoming a Windows OEM, supporting Windows, etc. Apple is more content with knowing that users in supported enterprise/academic/government environments can get Macs and use nifty technologies like Parallels, VMware, Boot Camp, etc., but isn't interested in getting into the Windows game itself.
One interesting item of note is that at many sites with Microsoft Volume Licensing Agreements, such as our own, Windows XP Pro and Windows Vista Enterprise are available essentially for free (just the cost of the media) for all departmentally-owned computers - including usage in virtualization, and including usage on Intel-based Macs.
So there are plenty of environments already that are very much taking advantage of this. Microsoft might not shed a tear if its licensing policy for Vista Home editions makes it a little harder financially for some people to justify the jump to Mac, but I doubt that's their primary focus.
Also, Apple doesn't really want to make it too easy for people to run Windows and Windows apps - just when they really need to. The idea is to bring more users to Mac OS X, so that app developers will bring apps to Mac OS X, which use all the nifty Mac OS X functionality. Who wants to run on a great OS (assuming that's the reason you switch) with all of your apps running in some Windows layer? Besides, many people who think they "need" Windows really don't, but the knowledge that they can run Windows if they needed to gets them over the hurdle. Or maybe the run Windows for a while, and realize they can duplicate everything they need and then some in OS X.
That said, yes, the seamless desktop integration features of Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion are really impressive. You can, for the most part, use Windows apps and Mac OS X apps seamlessly, side by side, with Dock integration, and even the ability to specify which kinds of documents open in which environment when double-clicked.
In any event, there are other issues here on both sides.
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares about what's licensed or not. Do you really think that 99.999% of buyers of a VISTA box will care or even look at what their box or dialog presents about agreeing to this or that? They will just install it if it will install. Unless MS can come up with a technical block that will prevent the program from working correctly in a VM, they can print the Harvard Law Library on their boxes for all the difference it would make. MS or anyone's licensing terms don't mean squat in the real world that everyone except lawyers inhabit, especially to consumers. If I were running a big business, I might pay just a tiny bit of attention to such "licenses".
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.vanderlee.com/)
Why would they mind if people could easily run their (legacy?) Windows apps on a Mac?
If I could get my Windows apps running on a Mac for little more than the cost of the Mac alone, it'll bring me one step closer to dropping Wintel altogether; migration just got easier.
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:4, Funny)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/gilmoure/ | Last Journal: Saturday November 16 2002, @05:41PM)
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://djdavetrouble.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 01 2005, @10:34PM)
disguised as cute little music players and phones.
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it kind of is. A Mac, even with the intel processor, doesn't feel like a PC at all. I used PCs for the last 20 years and finally got around to buying a Mac (Mac Book Pro) and the overall difference is significant. No more fussing with video drivers. No more butt ugly BIOS POST screens and BIOS config screens with options that almost nobody uses. I can boot off just about anything. Can put my computer in "target firewire" mode so it can act as an external hard drive to another computer. And many other things that, while sometimes possible with PCs, just work with a Mac. And the OS is integrated with the hardware features like neither Windows nor Linux could never quite manage.
It all comes at a price of fewer choices, of course. But after 20 years of PC "choices," I'm ready to settle down on something that just works elegantly and seamlessly. Macs are just SO MUCH more pleasant to work with.
-matthew
Re:I think Microsoft is more concerned... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://kamthaka.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 30 2005, @03:18PM)
At the risk of pointing out the obvious, MS is an unique position in the software industry. They can make TCO arguments based, not on the supportability of their products, but on the customers' sunk costs.
That said, I think Windows running on a VM is probably stabler and less costly to support than Windows running on real hardware.
At first blush, features like Parallel's Coherence would seem to be bad for the Mac platform and good for the Windows platform. Not only is there another windows license sold, licenses of Windows based software gain at the expense of Mac based programs.
This is where DRM comes in, I think.
Microsoft understands the value of owning the platform. Virtual Windows on Macs helps them in their traditional businesses, but it undermines their desire to gain control over digital entertainment in the same way they control office automation. Control of de facto DRM standards would be yet another proverbial "license to print money".
People using Macs with cheap copies of virtualized Windows literally side by side with Mac apps is not good for this plan. They will never be a huge market, but they could be influential.
MS a Metaphor for the US? (Score:1, Flamebait)
Half empty, or half full? (Score:2)
This is the "half-empty" view. The "half-full" full is that Microsoft welcomes such virtualization in the sense that it's product will be on more computers than ever before and may even have the *gasp* opposite effect of what people think... That is, maybe someone switches back to Windows after running it in a virtual machine. Even at discounted OEM prices, it is still generating revenue that otherwise would not have been there.
Re:Half empty, or half full? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://seenonslash.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 11 2007, @04:02PM)
Microsoft has always been interested in control. They believe in the long run it sells the most software licenses.
Re:Half empty, or half full? (Score:5, Insightful)
All this assumes that users - and support teams - are jumping for joy at the chance to maintain multiple operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets. To anyone but a Geek this can seem sadomasochistic.
God help them if virtualization does not remain transparent.
No more than Apple is... (Score:2, Interesting)
MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
In the short term. In the longer term, it could be very bad indeed.
Microsoft's power, and profits, come from the fact that they have a stranglehold on the market. They really can't afford to let anyone get too much traction in their own market - as soon as they loose the stranglehold things could turn very ugly very quickly for Microsoft, because it will mean they won't be able to dictate price to the market, the market will dictate to them and that will mean plunging profits.
Re:MS makes even more money (Score:4, Insightful)
In the short term sounds good for Microsoft. But in the long term, no.
Here's the scenario that Microsoft is afraid of: Computer user buys a Mac with Mac OS X and Windows. Yes, Microsoft got paid for the copy of Windows. But the user is now living in a Mac OS X world, logging into Mac OS X, using Mac's browser, Mac's Mail.app, iLife and so on. Windows has been delegated to the status of virtual machine, there only to support the running of Microsoft Project and the few other Windows only apps.
Over time, the user is focused more on the OS X software updates, the new OS X features, and the new OS X applications. Windows has become less important -- almost irrelevant, certainly out-of-mind for him.
Five years later, time to buy a new computer. He gets a new Mac. Doesn't even think about getting Windows this time -- or just decides to continue to use the old five year old copy of Windows from his previous Mac. Windows, for him, has become a legacy product.
Bill Gates has *always* said that Windows can be obsolete in five years.
boxlight
Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday March 26 2004, @02:46PM)
That, and, umm, wouldn't such a move sort of alienate the Developer mindshare for OSX? I guess I don't grok the incentive to help nudge Win32/64 developers to download Xcode and go to town if they see that they can continue to use Visual Studio .NET and just hum along in building apps that compile once but run on both platforms.
Apple (or rather, the friendly folks who make Parallels) could use that as a stop-gap (a couple-years' long one) to get behind pushing WINE, CrossOver, Cedega, etc etc... if indeed that's where they're wanting to go.
I like the angle, it has appeal, but it seems more damaging in the long run than to simply work on increasing marketshare among customers to the point where Windows-only dev shops are forced to take a good hard look at coding for OSX for competitive edge and survival reasons.
Besides... if Apple really wanted to give incentives, they could/should push for building tools that make cross-compiling hella easier, with maybe an IDE that can replace VS .NET on Windows entirely, say, with a modified Xcode that --oh by the way-- has a handy and nearly automatic suite of tools to make compiling OSX apps easier for the dev who uses it.
Terrified? I think not. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am of the honest opinion that the day Mac starts bundling Vista, or selling it OEM, etc. is the day that Microsoft breaks open bottles of wines and drinks to success.
Yep, I called it (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday March 13 2005, @09:45PM)
Well, not exactly...
Haha (Score:3, Insightful)
big deal! (Score:1)
(http://www.footballfans.tv/)
finally (Score:1)
DRM? come on, if people are going to ignore the DMCA do you really think that they will be bothered by the (probably (location dependent) worthless/illegal) licence agreement
someone like Apple wont dare break it
Well Played (Score:2)
(http://www.flying-rhenquest.net/)
obFuturama...
The real problem (Score:1, Flamebait)
MS is once again flexing its monopoly muscles to force end customers to pay higher prices to get stuff they don't really need/want.
Actually... (Score:2)
(http://andrewducker.livejournal.com/)
i think ars is way off here (Score:5, Interesting)
> Apple is technically an OEM, and could offer copies of Vista at a discounted price.
Microsoft, in the past and at present, has used OEM contracts as their major tool for consolidating their hold on the industry. Their OEM agreements have contained such provisions as "if you want preferred pricing, you can't sell computers that run any other operating system." Only for very, very large computer makers such as Dell and HP -- where Microsoft wants to be because there's huge volume -- do they relax these demands. The likelihood of Microsoft offering Apple an OEM contract is extremely low if MS thought it would be a threat.
Anyway, it's the business market, not the Joe Pirate market, that MS is concerned about.
> Instead, the apps appear to run in OS X itself, and the environment is (mostly) hidden away.
Except for, you know, the general crappiness of the apps.
I think what MS fears is what a lot of people already know: the main thing that keeps Apple out of the business market is that there's always one or two apps you need that only run under Windows, or some web site you need to access that only works properly with IE. OSX is more reliable, easier to support, and once you've learned the tools it's somewhat easier to manage configuration over a bunch of machines than Windows. If I could use a Macbook every day and run IE and a couple of other specialty apps alongside my OSX apps, my business' next hardware purchases would be from Apple and not from HP as they have been in the past. We already have no intention of upgrading to Vista until it becomes necessary due to dropped patch support for XP. If this situation arises, Microsoft has lost their monopoly power over the PC OEM's, and the tower crumbles.
Granted, this is more true for notebooks and dekstops than for servers and other infrastructure. But if I was managing a fleet of Macs for my employees, I'd start switching things over from Windows Server to OSX Server, too.
Ya right (Score:2)
Apple could still offer a cheap biz-edition. (Score:2)
(http://www.speakeasy.org/~itsjpr/mp3po)
With good reason (Score:2)
(http://www.markwatson.com/)
Microsoft still gets to sell Windows licenses, but they could get marginalized in the tech-elite market. That said, most of my non-computer savvy friends are happy enough to buy a cheap Windows PC to browse the web and do email.
Slowdown ? (Score:2)
Virtualization is a definite threat (Score:2, Interesting)
Virtualization, particularly when the virtualization is not terribly obvious, is a great threat to MS. I have a Windows box sitting in the corner to do those things for which Linux software does not exist. I fire it up after Patch Tuesday and then once in a while to run whatever it is I need. If I could have VMs (hardware is too limnited) then the same box would support my primary environment and Windows as a rarely used secondary. Not a pleasant place for MS to be when on other fronts they are wringing all the money they can from their products.
Imagine if you will ...
People using Open Office in Linux as their primary suite and resentfully starting up the non-standard MS Office to comply with a customer who hasn't seen the light ... Cleaning up the Windows instance from some attack while their Linux instance runs happily along ... Using Linux applications to create anything of lasting importance (without any trusted computing and DRM games) while using Windows for quickie throw-away stuff and interaction to comply with companies who are stuck in Windows environment ... People would begin to see Windows as an added cost instead of a part of overhead.
With its DRM, cost, and licensing restrictions, Windows might quickly be relegated to a media player and other envronments would take their place as serious applications. People would acquire the minimum MS they need to use proprietary stuff (some banks, employer systems, etc) and that is it. Even worse, imagine a system vendor being able to sell you a VM box with a diagnostic instance, linux, and optionally Windows. Suddenly there is no stranglehold on support environments. Manufacturers would tend to virtualize their hardware so that it could be used from Windows as well as other OSs. Compatibility would be a major driver of hardware sales. MS would lose the lock on hardware support.
So, in short, they have a big risk from virtualization and we can expect them to resist it as long as they can.reminds me of (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Wednesday October 03, @03:52PM)
Ask a stupid question, get another one back. (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon, if a zaibatsu were capable of being "terrified" (that's a pretty weird concept anyway) it wouldn't be terrified of having its products sold to an audience that would not otherwise buy them. And that's the case here, it's Microsoft penetrating the Mac/linux/BSD software market through virtualization, not the other way 'round.
Yes? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, imho.
And it's interesting that the press release http://www.vmware.com/company/news/releases/fusio
A seamless "Unity for Ubuntu" and DirectX 9.0c would be the final pieces of the puzzle for a lot of folks. It doesn't help the cause for pushing development of native Linux apps. But it would certainly increase the installed base of non-Windows OSes and that's a solid baby step.
Summary is Misleading (Score:2)
The summary describes a kind of "me too" marketing that Apple just doesn't do. Furthermore, consumers just don't work that way.
The way corporations Apple's size work is they wait long enough for a new segment to have many smaller vendors and enough market research to verify the dollar-size of a market. Then they build a simpler device in the same segment and charge more for it because they have to pay for all the advertising.
This is standard operating procedure.
Apple isn't much better (Score:2)
I love how Apple turns around and uses this as a feature point "Only a Mac can run Windows, Linux and OSX! It is truly a miracle!"....
Where to start? (Score:1, Troll)
(Last Journal: Friday October 05, @12:58AM)
Paraphrasing/summarizing/(even missing-the-point-you-ignorant-slut if you so choose):
1. "MS would win big by having Vista on Apple as it increases revenue." Booooookay - (and I *AM* writing this on an Apple) - aka, any Apple has to be considered as encroachment on their market dominance. Believe what you want, but Apple and Linux aren't threats to MS (from the marketing standpoint) - they're annoyances. It's not like there's an untapped sea of Apple users who have never heard of Windows and could be shown some kind of light. And then discover Windows thanks to VM. And want more of the same. And give access to a great untapped resource of potential Windows users of which you speak. Or anything, man.
2. "MS could win big with an OEM agreement with Apple." Uhhhhhh.... uuuuuuhhhhhhh - Dell, et al, have no other commercially dominant OS supplier to turn to, whereas Apple is devoid of this problem as they can supply their own OS. The only thing an Apple OEM agreement - in my not-so-humble opinion - could do is to invert negotiations everywhere. OEM agreements don't come from the Keebler Elves, you don't get a bag of them that are pretty much the same wherever you go - they're customized. And Mr. We-will-charge-a-buck-for-tunez-no-matter-what is not going to be easy to negotiate with - and neither will Dell, et al, after finding Apple may have some market lock with questions to be asked.
3. "Apple could win big by having an OEM agreement with MS." Ooooooh - scary - it would be admitting that OS X couldn't do it all - BEEEEP! Wrong. If they failed to get appropriate terms and had to charge to more for WinWhatever, then it increases the chances of adoption failure while Apple marketing has to fend off further charges of being overpriced. Better terms than that? See point number 2.
4. "Could be a support nightmare for MS and not worth the fringe buyers." Mmmmmmm - and which of you isn't a support nightmare for MS? And how much sleep have you seen them lose on your so-called nightmares?
5. "MS is all about control and VM under OS X effectively takes that control away." I went into the future where this happened and overheard Sparky and Scooter wondering what that MS Project thing was that they needed for effective Gant charts and WBS management and why that sideways-infinity thing was needed...... Or not. See points 1 and 3.
Where is Google's legal bitch against MS's desktop search? (See http://all.over.the.web.this.week/ [this.week]) And where is that same Google complaint against Spotlight? (See http://irdf.web-2.0.org/ [0.org] or http://but.apple.is.small.and.cool.and.ms.is.mean
It's about each side picking their battles, very wisely, with decades of winning and losing in this industry and it's about knowing what side of the consumers' asses to kiss - along with erstwhile partner/competitors - and a few government entities tossed in here and there - and a few renegade lawyers now that I think about it - and when.
But that's just me.
Apple's virtualization stance eyeing Microsoft? (Score:2)
However, as someone who is using virtualization software, I have to say, I doubt they have anything to fear. Virtualization software is non-trivial to set up, has spotty hardware support, has performance hits (particularly for I/O), uses lots of memory, and results in inconsistent UIs and unpleasant window management. I doubt that Microsoft is seriously worried about virtualization on OS X.
Too late. (Score:1)
(http://w1xer.de/ | Last Journal: Saturday September 09 2006, @05:55AM)
Apple *owns* x86 now.
Stability and virus control (Score:1)
OEM has nothing to do with it... (Score:2)
First, the regular OEM price isn't a "greatly reduced price" - its the de-facto going rate for Windows (exactly what price the big boys, Dell, HP etc. pay - and what "Important considerations" they offer in return is another question).
Secondly, the current OEM license already has some major extra restrictions about how and where you can install it - with crossed fingers and a following wind you could probably argue that these already blocked VM use - after all, where would you stick the hologram? :-) They pretty clearly mean that joe user isn't supposed to buy an OEM copy and install it on his VM. If MS had changed the OEM rules to explicitly block "VM bundling" then I doubt it would have raised the sort of negative publictiy than claiming that you can't even use a full-price version on a VM has.
Thirdly, I stand to be proven wrong by posterity, but the only circumstances under which I can see Apple bundling Windows is if they throw in the towel, drop OSX and become a vendor of designer Windows PCs with an iLife-for-windows bundle (while plausible, I'm sure that ain't exactly Plan 'A'). There's a huge PR difference between the current stance of "hey - if you want to use our hardware to run Windows here are some solutions" and saying "actually, so many people can't get buy with OSX alone that we've decided to bundle windows". The latter comes under the heading of "pulling a Ratner*". I'm sure Microsoft would love to be thrown into that briar patch.
Anyway, if you've actually tried to use Parallels (or, by reputation, VMware) you'll know that while they are excellent products, they don't yet come close to the Apple "it just works" standard (on which Windows sets something of an upper limit, anyway!). Coherence is very effective, and certainly solves the screen real-estate issues with running apps inside a VM window - but to say it "makes Windows apps look and work just like OSX" is rather optimistic.
Nope - explanation "A" is that TFA was warm - this policy makes it cheaper to buy a Dell than a legit copy of Windows Vista for your Mac or Linux box. Explanation "B" is that VMs can be used to circumvent DRM and that forcing pirates to buy a full-price copy of Ultimate gives Microsoft enough plausible deniability to stop the MS board from being carted off to G'tmo under the DMCA. Of course, Explanation B only makes sense if you are sufficiently far down the DRM rabbit hole to think that evil terrorist-loving pirates are going to lose sleep over breaching their windows EULA - or will even relate the concepts of "buy" and "windows" , but then...
(*Sorry - I've googled "pull a Ratner" and it might not mean in US English what it means in English English, which is "publicly describing your own product as 'crap' and then wondering where your business went")
future is in middleware or web 2.0 (Score:1)
Coherence link (Score:2)
(http://www.exacttarget.com/)
Just because you are an oem you can sell windows? (Score:2)
(http://www.popularculturegaming.com/)
No. (Score:2)
(http://www.lkmc.ch/)
There's a reason Apple invested in boot camp (Score:1)
Back Seat? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday January 12 2004, @02:03PM)
Isn't the back seat where you sit in a Limo, where we get taken where we want to go?
Gee, how bad could it be to sell more product through a yet another avenue?
Afraid of Apple? (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
It's lonely at the top.
Here's why Microsoft is really scared! (Score:2)
Now normally, he couldn't use this at work at all. Ever since the intentionally crippled Windows ME was created to force businesses to migrate to the more expensive Windows 2000/XP Pro, instead of running on Windows 98SE, Microsoft, like the airlines who find ways to make business travelers pay more (e.g. advance purchase requirements for cheap fares, Saturday night stays, etc.), has been able to create versions of Windows that companies with more money to spend have to buy the expensive ones. If you want to connect into Active Directory, home versions just won't do it. They held on to the home market as well by offering much cheaper versions of Windows there.
Now, however, if your base operating system (Linux, OS/X) can handle connectivity to your business needs, then the cheapest Windows in a virtual environment can be used for your Windows only apps.
Furthermore, this gives you an easy way to migrate away over time from Windows apps altogether. You no longer have to go Cold Turkey on being cutoff from Windows. You can keep what you need until the next software upgrade cycle, running less and less on Windows Vista, until you don't need it any longer at all.
Yeah, if I was Microsoft I'd really be scared too!
DRM is ALL ABOUT the law-abiding citizen. (Score:2)
(http://www.scarydevil.com/~peter/ | Last Journal: Monday September 26 2005, @06:53PM)
All DRM, copy protection, "Genuine Windows", these are all directed at the "law abiding citizen". There's no way to keep an aggressive attacker from compromising any DRM scheme that's loose enough that the "law abiding citizens" will put up with it, so all DRM is for is to stop casual copying.
Virtual machines don't just let you clone the "keys" to the DRMed content... as you say, that's ludicrous. Not only would a copy of a movie wrapped up in a VM be huge, but it would also contain everything the copyright owner would need to track down the original pirate. What virtual machines do more than anything else is compromise the data path. The copy of Windows running in the VM will happily play a movie in its virtual screen, which your VM can then transcribe to a file with no copy protection on it. Virtual machines make casual copying through the "digital hole" trivial.
That's why VMs and DRM go together like a lit cigarette and a gas station.
Parallels Coherence (Score:1)
I just updated my version of Parallels the other day, and didn't even notice the buttons for Coherence. It is extremely cool!
- RG>
What the heck happened here? (Score:1)
Once you shut off the zealotry, the blogger who is journalist by night and mcdonalds cashier technician by day, the writer who feels the need to 100% of the time write in a manner to agree with absolutely the most opinions regarding readership, etc, you no longer see things nearly the same.
What I see is my investment portfolio with two companies who have done exceptionally well in my time paying attention to such things. One thing that it seems like the entire world, except for the guy who bought a little bit of the company, like to form snap opinions based on what's in their face at that very moment and not anything remotely resembling a future reality adjusted to whatever licensing schemes, sales schemes, etc either could come up with. For instance, this whole discussion seems to be stuck in an alternate world where Microsoft and Apple will make a decision, go with it, never adjust, until one of them is sunk. Think about how absolutely moronic that is to even discuss!
Parallels is a bit shady. (Score:2)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/kamdrimar/)
VMWare Fusion beta 4 (free open beta, currently) is pretty much on par with Parallels 3.0 (each is a bit better/worse than the other in some areas) and the official release is pre-orderable for half-price, and the full price is the same as Parallels'. From my experience, VMWare has been a much more trustworthy, reliable company, with much happier customers in general, and as such, I'd think it more kosher for them to be the VM lauded so highly, rather than the one included as an afterthought.
VirtualPC (Score:2)
Microsoft loses in the end... (Score:1)
Keynote and Pages blow PowerPoint and Word out of the water, and also are compatible. OpenOffice, the GIMP and other FOSS tools are available. I use nmap (compiled from source), Andreas Fink's Wireshark package (too much of a pain to compile on my own), and yeah, so on and so forth. System uptime: two days and 24 minutes; rebooted only to apply some software updates recently. The stability and CLI of UNIX, the beauty of Apple GUI...it just works. And well.
Why not? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Monday November 28 2005, @09:58PM)
Clearly the problem is more in the cost of the new mandatory Vista on Apple licenses. If they're done on the cheap, Microsoft will miss a bit of revenue.
I'm a little surprised Apple is working on this, they've always wanted to be a bigger monopolist than Microsoft (Microsoft doesn't try to lock you into a hardware/software vertical monopoly). Jobs has always been adamant that Apple is a software company (I think this is strange, the primary business of Apple is MP3 players and DRM'd music distribution, although this is changing to just watermarking files so they can be traced). So why would Jobs want to water down his control over the Apple user by promoting more Windows apps? My gut feeling is that he is doing this to reduce the popular opinion that Macs "aren't compatible" and "can't run my apps" to buffer up his sales. But how he'll re-assert his control over the users is a mystery to me.
Reality Distortion Field will help somehow?
Fear of everyone but Apple (Score:2)
1984 Mac GUI = Windows 95
1997 Mac "blue box" virtualizer on Rhapsody developer preview = Parallels 2007 on Mac OS X
1999 Mac virtualizer in Mac OS X Server = 2009 Parallels on high-end PC's running Unix
2001 Mac virtualizer in consumer Mac OS X = 2011 PC virtualizer with Windows in all consumer PC systems running Unix
2002 Classic Mac OS funeral (WWDC) = no new Win32 development by 2012
2003 Mac virtualizer now an optional component of Mac OS X, not pre-installed = 2013 PC's say "bring your own Windows if you need it"
The last person that Microsoft is afraid of with regards to virtual Windows is Apple. It is much worse for them if Parallels or VMWare become Windows OEM's and hide Windows completely yet still run its apps. It is much worse for Sony to ship a Unix with PC virtualizer and Windows in it and hide Windows but still run its apps. Apple doesn't need to hide Windows to get Photoshop, that is a native Mac app for 10 versions, on Windows for only half that time. Apple likes it just fine if an AutoCAD user can buy a Mac and Parallels and still run their AutoCAD next to iLife and Apache.
If somebody can show me another consumer OS and app platform being migrated to a modern system in some other way, I'd be willing to reconsider my position. But wow do the PC pundits of today sound like Mac pundits of 10 years ago all talking about app platforms and virtualization and modern operating systems and Unix and how to we get there from here.
Re:Terrified? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Terrified? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it became Apple's policy to include Vista with ever computer it would only help Microsoft. The people who would be complaining would be HP and Dell if Apple was getting just as good as a deal as they were.
Re:Terrified? (Score:2, Insightful)
WIN-OS2 allowed MSWindows apps to run seamlessly on the OS/2 desktop (impressive workplace shell, by the way). The strategy was simple: if users can run their windows apps under OS/2 they will switch to OS/2 easily, and end-up using OS/2 apps because the OS is so superior. So, WIN-OS2 was shipped with every copy of OS/2 as standard.
You remember what happened in the end: people used OS/2 exclusively to run windows apps but at the cost of a bunch of compatibility issues. Eventually, OS/2 apps were never developped, and OS/2 was perceived as just a slow and troublesome version of windows.
Of course, MS had a lot to do with the death of OS/2. But I still think that running Win32 apps on top of OSX will lead to the same fate.
Re:Terrified? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes.
No.
If the buyer is demanding a VM running Windows then Windows is in the driver's seat - because his must-have apps are Windows only.
His design and marketing teams will get twenty-five spanking-new Mac workstations. The 25,000 others he employs the generic Windows desktop from Dell.
Re:Terrified? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://theravensnest.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday October 07, @07:05AM)
Re:Afraid? (Score:1)
VHD images http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/vstudio/aa700831
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/04/17/ie7-v
for XP sp2.
Of course they do expire but new ones are posted when they do.
I run them under VPC 2007 on 64 bit vista and they do just fine. I just wish I could figure out the usb pass through for my usb phone and my ipod. Other then that with additions its a free version of xp to beat on
Re:The real use of virtualized Windows (Score:2)