Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax 661
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. (Score:5, Informative)
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:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Informative)
1) The EULA terms apply to all VMs, not just Macs.
2) This anonymous comment found here [virtualserver.tv] says: Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
Running Vista using bootcamp... (Score:3, Informative)
Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp (Score:5, Informative)
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:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (Score:5, Informative)
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:Summary incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
More a Problem for Linux than Mac Boxes? (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, you are be legaly allowed to install Vista via bootcamp on a mac because all bootcamp does is set up a bootloader and HD partition and then burns a CDROM of drivers for you. No virtualisation envolved... unless 'They' claim that the bootloader is one ;)
This article should have been under a VMWare related thread. The pricing hits linux users most. (developers with win boxes propably are gona opt for the pro version anyway.)
This obviously doesn't apply to Bootcamp (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Informative)
Be nice to see some confirmation from MS tho'.
Well, here are the important parts from the license agreement [microsoft.com]: And here [microsoft.com]: 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:Coherence changed my life (Score:4, Informative)
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!
Re:Why not? (Score:2, Informative)
The features added in each release are quite a bit more than a mere "service pack". Granted, each release may not have as many new features as Vista, but they also don't take 6 years to get out the door, either.
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Informative)
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:Apples moves into VM (Score:1, Informative)
Huh? Only if you want to run it in BOTH bootcamp (which is NOT a VM) and in something like Parallels. You are perfectly free to run any version in either of those systems but only the Ultimate can be run in both.
MAC != Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (Score:2, Informative)
I support 20+ THOUSAND PC's and over 1000 servers. All run Windows. I don't have to worry about viruses and spyware, because Windows based systems work perfectly fine.
That so called thing about Mac's being more stable has been bunk since the release of Windows 2000. Say such things really does make it look like you been hitting the RDF Koolaide a bit too hard.
Pure fun? Lemme see, none of the games I play work on the Mac. Thus my PC running Vista is a LOT more fun. Not to mention I have fun building my own PC with whatever hardware I chose to put into it. Can you do that with a Mac? Nope. Not even close. Thus you really are stuck with the Mac. Or rather, stuck with whatever Apple chooses to sell you...
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:2, Informative)
What is a "licensed device"?
I think the licensed device is the system that Windows is running on. If you buy one copy of Home and install it on your computer, that system is the licensed device. If you buy a computer from Dell, that computer is the licensed device. A VM running on these systems would be considered a separate entity and need it's own software license.
Now, what would the "licensed device" be with a standalone copy of Vista Home Basic if the original intent is to run it in a VM?
The way I read it, the licensed device in this case would be the VM. I see no reason why you couldn't run Home under a Windows/Mac/Linux VM if that is the only place you install it.
you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places
I think that's exactly it. Home versions of Vista come with ONE "full" license (to be used on any hardware) and ZERO "virtual" licenses. Enterprise and Ultimate versions come with ONE full license and ONE virtual license (to be used on the same machine as the full license was). Following this logic, it would be just fine if you bought Ultimate, installed it first in a VM (using the full license), then installed it in another VM (using the virtual license) running inside the original VM.
Really, it's not that bad. If this is indeed what they were trying to say, the license is pretty nice for the Ultimate and Enterprise editions. The whole point seems to be to prevent someone from trying to bypass the licensing agreement by installing Vista in dozens of VMs using only a single license.
Re:Actually, you can't run Vista at all... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Summary incorrect. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:3, Informative)
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.
"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."
You own the box, you own the CD that came in the box, you own the papers in the box. You don't own the program, you are merely licensing it's use from MS under the terms they dictate.
"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."
You are simply wrong.
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Depends on jurisdiction - example where M$ lost (Score:3, Informative)
Note that the end user in Germany is given additional protection against "unfair and surprising" clauses in "Terms Of Service", EULAs and the like. So even if Hans Kraut carelessly accepts a particularly onerous EULA under circumstances that would make it binding, he has a chance of taking it down in court.
Merchants have to be more careful, as they are held to a higher standard of diligence.
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Informative)
"Most courts that have addressed the validity of the shrinkwrap license agreements have found them to be invalid
Taken from: wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
Reading Skills 101 for slashclowns (Score:3, Informative)
If Home users on Macs want Vista Premium to Game they can,........ wait for it
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:We'll name it the "BrokenHalo question" (Score:2, Informative)
Person 1: "I want to do this. How can I do it?"
Person 2: "Well why would you want to do that?" and proceeds to explain how it's a stupid idea and how one shouldn't do it (or provide an irrelevant solution/rant).
Most of the time Person 1 has a legitimate/rational reason. Person 2 (who often is barely competent) can't conceive of every situation but feels free to criticize Person 1 without providing help.
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-antitrust-ac
NOTE: look for the part called "tying arrangement".
LoB LOL