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.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[cmacb (547347)]

"Yeah! And you know what? Car manufacturers are just as guilty! Can you believe that they charge more to have power door locks, power windows, and heated seats?"

I think comparisons with car manufacturers should be eschewed until the point in time when you can sue Microsoft for damages you incur while using their products. This applies to other software products as well, and as a Linux user I'm not too keen on having it applied to free software. But my point is that comparing software with almost any other commercial product doesn't work as long as companies make big bucks with almost no offsetting responsibilities. In a way I'm hopeful that Microsoft's pricing will become ever more monopolistic, forcing people to think about alternatives.

Re:Summary incorrect.

[mollymoo (202721)]

Do you care that you are wrong and have misread the EULA? It states that you cannot use the same license to run in a VM on the Licensed device. eg, you are not supposed to install home or basic on a physical machine and then use the same license/product key for the VM.

The question is what is considered to be the "licensed device". If a VM can be considered the "licensed device", you can run Vista Home/Basic in an VM. If the physical hardware is considered the "licensed device", you can't run Vista Home/Basic in a VM. Given Microsoft make specific mention of things you won't be able to do in a VM for Ultimate (which is supposed to have every feature), but don't mention that loss of functionality for Basic or Home, I suspect that you won't be able to run Basic or Home in a VM at all. But whatever the license says, the decision in practice has been made and will be enforced by the Vista installer. Anybody actually tried it?

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.

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

[dreamlax (981973)]

My iBook has crashed once since I purchased it in March 2006. You don't want to know how many times Windows has crashed on me on the many computers I work on. In fact I couldn't tell you. I've lost count.

Windows is great, sure. There's a lot of hardware out there, some users need a particular extension to their computer and chances are Windows can drive it. In my opinion, Macs don't even want to go there. They want to run on what they know they can run on, and run well. Because the operating system is designed around a very specific hardware model, they can increase performance and stability. They can ensure that their OS can run on that hardware smoothly. And because of that, they can support it better.

Windows on the other hand caters for so many different hardware setups. Different motherboard chipsets, different network controllers, different monitors and graphics cards. To ensure it runs on all of those is a massive task. They do it rather well, I think, considering the multitude of permutations.

So, when you buy a Mac, you buy it because you know what it can do, not what it could do if you added something. You buy a Mac based on particular requirements, the same reason you buy anything. Macs are reputable for being an out-of-the-box solution for common computing tasks; emails, word processing, internet surfing, photo sharing etc.

Each time I install XP, I am bombarded with the same questions over and over. It's the typical scenario to get anything to work in Windows. "Next, next, I agree, next, next, next, yes, next, next, reboot." You don't do that with a Mac. Hell, to install Office (or just about any app) on a Mac you drag it from the source/CD into your Applications folder. That makes a fucking shitload of sense. It's what you should do. On Windows, it's the whole "next, next" bullshit.

Here's the conclusion. You don't need to know how to use a computer to use a Mac. Everything is either explained in plain English or implemented so intuitively that it doesn't need an explanation. You can't possibly tell me that it is the same scenario for Windows.

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.

Alternatives

[justanyone (308934)]

Alternatives to doing this include:

* mailing a part of your anatomy to a loved one (William Gates);
* using Wine to run a limited set of programs in an almost functional way;
* switching to a different program that does the same thing natively on the Mac;
* using a multi-boot scenario to boot into another OS instead of OS/X;
* using VMWare (does this run under OS/X YET???) to create a VM that runs an MS OS;
* creating a VM that runs Win2K or XP and ignoring the "benefits" of Vista;
* running naked through the frigid streets with a placard reading "UBUNTU ROCKS, BABY!"
* Diazepam, lots and lots of Diazepam (generic of Vallium, for the uninitiated).

Enjoy your happy and carefree lifestyle of free choices freely made in a consequences free environment !!

[ Oh. Sorry. I forgot. There are consequences. Never mind. ]

Running Vista using bootcamp...

[Anubis350 (772791)]

...or any other boot loader like rEFIt is *not* a virtual machine. This only applies to people using paralells and the like and applies equally to *anyone* who runs Vista in a VM (and this was expected a while ago too I seem to remember)... In other words, this is non-news people...

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:

[VGPowerlord (621254)]

I was all set to mod you up until you said

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.

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.

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.

Re:Coherence changed my life

[seanadams.com (463190)]

The VM feels just as fast as a native machine for CPU and filesystem stuff. I haven't attempted to benchmark it - this is just subjective "real world" feel. For graphics it might be slower, but I don't use games or 3D apps, so I don't notice.

I have not had a single compatibility issue. In fact everything just works so well you don't even notice all the individual little things that work just fine, such as two-finger trackpad scrolling, USB devices, drag and drop, etc. Some things like wireless networking actually work _better_ in the VM than on a native windows install, because they're handled by MacOS and abstracted to a simpler virtual drivers that the VM uses.

It's actually kind of eerie how well it works!

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.

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

[mr_matticus (928346)]

That depends on the definition of "emulated" you use. If somewhere toward the beginning, it talks about the use of a virtual machine or some other kind of software emulation, you'd have to test their definition. If the architecture is emulated in hardware, you'd be off the hook. There are protections against "unreasonable and unintended consequences" in contract language, and this would be one of them--but more importantly, you'd never need them because Microsoft would never construe microcode emulation to be in violation of their license. I suspect you were modded up simply because of your shrink wrap jab. Back in the real world, though, your concern has nothing to do with EULAs but rather contract language in general (that is, ALL contracts would be affected by this pedantry), especially those with more dire consequences (corporate licensing and binding stipulation).

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

[QuantumG (50515)]

Subscribers actually see these stories early.. and there's a line on them that says "if you see anything obviously wrong with this article, email ..." and there's a link. About 2 times out of the 8 times I've emailed something has happened that appears to be in response to my email. "dupe" seems to get them jumping. For this article I emailed "this doesn't affect bootcamp" but I was ignored.

hmm.. I vote - don't care - safe to ignore.

[GodInHell (258915)]

Yes, they have a lovely contract that says I cannot install this on a VM. Okay.. that's lovely - saddly since it's only revealed after purchase once the return policy is voided, is an obvious adhesion contract (a contract with fixed terms that you MUST agree with to use a service), and the contracts sole purpose it to leverage it's unreasonable position of advantadge to force the client into an untenable position.

Translation, I could break that baby in court after thirty seconds of argument before a judge.

-GiH
Just a law student.

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

[Darby (84953)]

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.

Yes, you really are allowed to do damn near anything you want to with it. You bought it, it's your property. You can't make copies for other people due to copyright law, but if you want to install it in a virtual machine running on your toaster then knock yourself out.

There is not one god damned thing in the world that allows them to dictate how you choose to use your property.

Pretending that they have rights that they do not and treating this nonsense in their meaningless EULA as if it were even sane is just fucking retarded.

Run it anywhere you damn well please. It is your right if you paid for it.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[by Anonymous Coward]

That's right, if it's an EULA that you are presented with after paying for the product then it is not an agreement. Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid, and in the case of an EULA you get nothing. Microsoft could give these terms before you buy, in which case they would be part of an agreement.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[C0rinthian (770164)]

Under common law both sides have to benefit for an agreement to be valid, and in the case of an EULA you get nothing.

You get permission to use their software. Although many here would not consider it a benefit...

Re:Apples moves into VM

[ari_j (90255)]

The common law is the body of case law in a given jurisdiction. It originated in England, as compared to the civil law countries of the European continent (and Quebec and Louisiana, going back to their French roots). English colonies inherited the common law and, by and large, are still common law jurisdictions today. That includes every state in the US (other than Louisiana) that was added after independence.

Now, as to the common law of contract, the statement is still not necessarily right. General rule of thumb: Don't get your legal advice from Slashdot, or anywhere else on the Internet.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[killjoe (766577)]

That would seem like the logical thing but in today's world you didn't buy it and it's not your property. You have simply paid MS for the rights to use their intellectual property under the terms they dictate.

People here complain about the GPL but at least the GPL does not apply to you if you are merely USING the software.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Darby (84953)]

That would seem like the logical thing but in today's world you didn't buy it and it's not your property. You have simply paid MS for the rights to use their intellectual property under the terms they dictate.

I have yet to hear of a single court case lending any validity to that viewpoint.
Were I to buy one of their products, I'd head down to the computer store, pay Microcenter for a product in a box and I would own it. Whatever nonsense they want to write inside the box is meaningless.
There is nothing that gives them any right to say shit about what I do with it (within copyright law). They weren't even part of the transaction.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

It hasn't been tested in courts but I think it's reasonable to expect that the EULAS carefully prepared by an army of lawyers would stand up in court without problems.

In Germany, a Microsoft EULA clause that forbids unbundling of OEM versions has failed in court a few years ago. It was the Bundesgerichtshof to boot, Germany's highest court in non-constitutional affairs.

Large companies use EULAs as FUD tactics far more often than you think. If the EULA can scare most people into obeying (not counting those who outright pirate the software anyway), it has served its purpose even if it doesn't hold water in court.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Dogtanian (588974)]

The idea behind EULA's is that under some theories of copyright law you do not have the right to copy the software from the CD to your hard drive. The EULA grants you that right.

(IANAL also) Surely if the software requires to be copied to a hard drive to fulfil its stated purpose, then any reasonable court would (or should) consider that there is implied permission to do just that, with no EULA necessary.

Viewed in that context, the EULA could be considered "damage limitation", that actually, they *will* explicitly let you copy it, but on their terms. Legally, if what I said above holds, then any "rights" the EULA gives you which are weaker than the (arguably) implied rights that you (again arguably) already have, they should be irrelevant. But I suspect they may be able to get away with fudging this sort of issue due to the vagueness of user rights in the first place.

Re:Apples moves into VM

[node 3 (115640)]

It hasn't been tested in courts but I think it's reasonable to expect that the EULAS carefully prepared by an army of lawyers would stand up in court without problems.

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to assume this. None.

Consider the "Not Responsible For Lost or Stolen Items" signs at your mall's parking lot. Do you think that's the case? Do you truly believe that it's thus impossible to sue and win for a situation where they *are* responsible? They put those signs up because if it keeps even *one* person from suing for what is rightfully theirs, the signs have more than paid for themselves.

Same with EULAs.

EULAs may be iron-clad, or they may be absolutely meaningless (although I bet, as is usually the case, reality lies somewhere in between). Either way, the lawyers are going to write them to ask for the most they can make sound even remotely reasonable, while denying every possible manner of liability or responsibility fathomable. The purpose is similar to the sign in the parking lot. You're not going to get something you don't ask for, so why not ask for the Moon? The worst you'll get is nothing, and who knows, you might just get what you ask for. Even a compromise turns out to be a win.

And what if EULAs turn out to have been a sham this whole time? Guess what: they've worked spectacularly. Countless people and corporations have been obeying them faithfully, even if it turns out they never had to.

How much did it cost for the lawyers, who were already writing an EULA anyway, to add a line prohibiting use in a VM? How many people will now buy a more expensive version of Vista to comply (especially in corporate environments)?

Re:Apples moves into VM

[node 3 (115640)]

The concept of the EULA has been tested and upheld now in numerous lawsuits in numerous states.

I call "bullshit". In fact, I call "super-bullshit" since the exact opposite is the case.

"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid ... A minority of courts have determined that the shrinkwrap license agreement is valid and enforceable"

Taken from: wikipedia [wikipedia.org].

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:Apples moves into VM

[daveschroeder (516195)]

Yes, this article is crap, but for what it's worth, the Vista Home Basic and Home Premium license is intended to prohibit use in any kind of virtual machine environment. I had the same line of reasoning you did. Vista Ultimate does come with two licenses, but Home Basic and Home Premium really do intend (apparently) to prohibit use in virtualization. This has been covered repeatedly, and confirmed by Microsoft representatives.

-----

On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:

Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said that if developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription, which has a different license allowing such an install. All that said, there's nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista version in a virtual machine.

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?

Paul,

In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all
this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

"4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or
otherwise emulated) hardware system."

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside
a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".

This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization
product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed
anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".

The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and
Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the
same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment
on the same device where Vista is already installed.

The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of
virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can
still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such
as Parallels or VMWare.

[1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is
already installed on a licensed device.

[2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already
installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it
in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business
and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses
specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these
specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in
the EULA in the first place.

Thoughts?

Re:Apples moves into VM

[Locutus (9039)]

Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and as such they are NOT allowed to the same 'competitive' practices as others. The "convicted" part is stated because they've already shown to have used their monopoly position illegally under the rules of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.

Apple is not even close to being a monopoly so they can do as they please under normal competitive rules.

Why is this soooo difficult for people to understand....

LoB

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:MAC users who want to run Vista Home

[westlake (615356)]

The question still remains, "Why Vista?" Why devote that large a chunk of your resources to an OS that spends most of its time making sure you're not being naughty?

When you add an HD tuner or Blu-Ray drive to your Mac you will discover that the rules for HD content protection are the same.

Vista spends most of its time doing what OSX does most of its time: running applications and maintaining an end-user oriented GUI.

I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.
Yup, me too
But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.

Please explain to me how a programmer writing cross-platform apps in Java (or any other language) avoids testing on Vista.

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.

Re:

[ocelotbob (173602)]

Because if you only need to run one or two apps, it doesn't make much sense to have to shut down all your other apps just to run the few programs that don't run under OS X.

Re:oh boo f'ing who....

[wass (72082)]

The problem isn't that your choices are limited, the problem is that Microsoft lets you run your licensed copy of Vista ONLY if Vista is the primary booted OS and not virtual. Despite the fact that it's running on the same damn computer whether it's virtual or not. Oh, unless you pay them a few hundred bucks extra, then you can run it virtual. This is the typical age-old anti-trust behavior they've been engaging in for the past 20+ years. Apple on the other hand lets you do whatever the hell you want with the hardware and software. They allow you to do whatever you want with OS X, as long as you're running it on OS X supported hardware. You are complaining that the pool of OS X hardware is smaller, while most other people here are complaining that Microsoft charges you a hefty fee if you want to run Windows to run as a VM inside another OS even though you legally purchased it to work with that specific hardware. Apple gives you the same rights on the same hardware, Microsoft makes you pay more unless they're the OS 'in charge' on your system.