Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Businesses Apple

Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax 661

Posted by samzenpus
from the pay-up dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Slugs Mac Users With Vista Tax

Comments Filter:
  • by xQx (5744) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:18PM (#17929948)
    Should spend $500 on some PC hardware with Vista OEM installed and get over it.

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

    Maybe this guy knows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEvYETWVK6M
  • by PygmySurfer (442860) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:19PM (#17929956)
    Exactly, hasn't this been reported about 17 times already on Slashdot?
  • by boxlight (928484) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:20PM (#17929970)
    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
  • by MSFanBoi2 (930319) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:20PM (#17929980)
    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.
  • by pilkul (667659) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:25PM (#17930038)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:25PM (#17930044)
    Most people install XP/Vista to run those one-off apps, or perhaps to run games.

    The obvious Microsoft license-fighting option is just install the Crossover Professional from CodeWeavers. It's not free, but IE & Outlook can be up & running without much fuss without paying Microsoft a single penny.

  • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:26PM (#17930050) Homepage
    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.
  • by ozphx (1061292) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:27PM (#17930056) Homepage

    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!
  • by msauve (701917) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:42PM (#17930202)
    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.
  • by SydShamino (547793) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:43PM (#17930214)
    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.)
  • Well done (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kabal` (111455) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:45PM (#17930230) Homepage
    Lets give this guys shitty blog more hits.

    1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
    2) Dis microsoft
    3) ???
    4) PROFIT!
  • Re:Uhmm (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ocelotbob (173602) <`ocelot' `at' `ocelotbob.org'> on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:46PM (#17930242) Homepage
    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.
  • by Angelwrath (125723) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:48PM (#17930264)
    Sounds like someone from Digg came to Slashdot to post the article. This is precisely the kind of tabloid-esque, inaccurate title for an article that Digg is now plagued with.
  • by Simon Garlick (104721) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:48PM (#17930266)
    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.

    I think it's more likely to be a case of "they don't want you to buy 1 copy of Vista, install it in a VM, and then put the VM image up on a BT tracker for a billion of your close personal friends".

    Gee, can't see why Microsoft would have a problem with that...

    Come on guys, Microsoft does enough retarded things. Don't bash it for the perfectly sensible things.
  • by Tau Neutrino (76206) on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:49PM (#17930270)

    I'm a Mac user and I need access to Windows because I have to test my Java code on Windows.

    Yup, me too. 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?

    I mean, XP is bad enough, but can be tamed. And it's going to be sufficient for any Windows operation you might want to perform on a Mac. I've got it running under Parallels, and it's not so bad.

    But no way Vista is going on any of machines: Mac, PC, or other.

  • by seanadams.com (463190) * on Wednesday February 07, 2007 @11:52PM (#17930296) Homepage
    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:Why not? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by willyhill (965620) <pr8wak@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:04AM (#17930388) Homepage Journal
    Oh, how little you understand us. It's _fine_ if you don't like Mac.

    "Us"? You know, I have lots of computers. They run mostly Windows and BSD, with the occasional Linux box for measure. I don't identify myself with them. They're just boxes with an operating system. They just help me do my job(s). I'm not emotionally attached to them. I find it rather sad that someone would think that buying an appliance makes them part of some elite group of people.

    And no, I don't dislike OS X at all. That's not the point.

  • by Skreems (598317) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:05AM (#17930390) Homepage
    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.
  • by wass (72082) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:08AM (#17930410)
    I never understood why when Apple locks you out no one really complains, but when Microsoft does it, its horrible.


    Inaccurate comparison, you're simplifying the situation (intentionally?)

    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.

    So, while you claim Apple is the restrictive party here, they're actually the more open party. Your complaint is only that Apple has a more limited pool of hardware to run OS X, however within that pool you can do whatever you want on those computers with your OS X. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a wider array of available hardware, but they only lets you run your licensed copy of Vista if they're the main player at the time, and won't let you run Vista within (ie, in a VM) to another OS unless you shell out significantly more cash.

  • by edwardpickman (965122) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:11AM (#17930444)
    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.
  • by GodInHell (258915) * on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:18AM (#17930488) Homepage
    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:Well done (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:22AM (#17930520)
    That's also slashdot's formula. Just look around you: 90% of all articles are either flamebaits or the summery is miswritten to cause controversy. All CmdrDildo has to do is show hits, not prove that users are posting meaningful content. When it comes down to it, it's not the editors job to make sure things are kept on the straight and narrow, their job is to suck in people into their flame wars.

    Do you really think Zonk's that dumb? he drums up tons of business by the same fucktards who are too stupid to understand the scheme.

    It's one big fucking lie around here.
  • by wass (72082) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:22AM (#17930524)
    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.
  • by east coast (590680) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:30AM (#17930570)
    That's a pretty stiff penalty to stick Mac users with.

    Any stiffer than Apple forcing PC users to buy Apple hardware to run an Apple OS? I guess, by your own standards, it's just one more reason to never buy Apple.
  • by ArbitraryConstant (763964) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:38AM (#17930616) Homepage
    "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.
  • by cmacb (547347) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:41AM (#17930644) Homepage Journal
    "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.
  • by zcat_NZ (267672) <zcat@wired.net.nz> on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:44AM (#17930660) Homepage
    Yeah, but that's because it actually costs them more to fit them. The car doesn't come with those things fitted and then deliberately dissabled.

  • by joeytmann (664434) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @12:52AM (#17930704)
    Choices not limited? Ummm, I can pretty much buy parts from any number of manufacturers and OEMs and install Vista/XP on it no problem and the license allows this. OSX on the other hand, sure you can probably install it on a lot of different types of hardware, but if you do you will be in direct violation of the OSX license, plus you better be a pretty smart guy as usually this involves using bootcamp in some sort of odd fashion.

    How is this like the MS "age-old anti-trust behavior"? All they are saying is that we don't want to support running VMs on our most basic OS. It would be like trying to make your GE fridge act like a maytag dish washer, sure you can problem do it if you can figure out how, but don't go to either for help if you break something, you'll be paying for new parts.

    As for running VM's, do you think there are home users, aka mom and dad that can barely can tell the difference between OSX and Vista, that really want to run Vista Home in a VM? I think not, the only people that want to do it are tech geeks that need to test software. Vista is clearly NOT a server class OS. If you are a developer and need to run lots of VMs, get Windows Server Ent, VMWare, whatever. Yes a lot more expensive, but they are supported and licensing isn't a problem. Then you can properly test all the software you want.

    And yeah, maybe atcually RTFM. This article says VMs on Vista Home, of any kind, isn't allowed. So you can't even run Vista in a VM on a Vista host using MS'es free VirtualServer2005.
  • by Nintendork (411169) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:12AM (#17930826) Homepage
    I wonder how many of the slashdot readers read the comments on articles to find out which ones are just plain wrong? Slashdot's approval of blatant lies and reverse-FUD is embarrassing and immature.
  • by mollymoo (202721) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:20AM (#17930884) Journal

    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?

  • by ratboy666 (104074) <fred_weigel@hotmail . c om> on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:23AM (#17930916) Homepage Journal
    "USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
    licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."

    This is licensed software. It is licensed to be run on a single device. The relevant part of the license is:

    "License Model. The software is licensed on a per copy per device basis...
    INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must
    assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device."
    A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.
    a. Licensed Device. You may install one copy of the software on the licensed device. You may
            use the software on up to two processors on that device at one time. Except as provided in the
            Storage and Network Use (Ultimate edition) sections below, you may not use the software on any
            other device."

    If you put the two together, the result is strange. Apparently, you can designate the computer running a virtual machine as a "licensed device". You can even INSTALL Vista Home on it. You just can't USE it. Nor can you use it on emulated hardware such as BOCHS, either.

    Specifically, there is a license prohibition against that use. To do this, you need Ultimate. But even with Ultimate on a VM or emulated system, you are not licensed to use Microsoft DRM.

    I don't like it. But that's the way it's written.
  • by Locutus (9039) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:27AM (#17930952)
    4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

    What is a "licensed device"? Is Microsoft saying that they are once again, locking their OS to the hardware?

    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? There is no licensed device unless the VM image is the licensed device?

    The way I read what the EULA is attempting to say, they don't allow you to run the version of Microsoft Windows Vista, which you purchased with the computer, inside a virtual machine on that computer or any other computer. ie you can't have the same licensed software installed in two or more places.

    LoB

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:40AM (#17931058)

    Is Microsoft saying that they are once again, locking their OS to the hardware?
    SAYS THE MAC USER...You know the OSX that is only supposed to run on Apple machines?
  • by GiMP (10923) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:41AM (#17931064)

    You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.
    I believe this ONLY prohibits software virtualization. The EULA clearly notes (page 1, #2) that a "hardware partition" is defined as a separate device. One could clearly argue that hardware virtualization of the likes of AMD's Pacifica and Intel's VT are can be called "hardware partitions". If not, what is a hardware partition? Multiple motherboards in a single chassis? Multiple northbridges and southbridges with dedicated processing cores on a single PCB? Where do we draw lines?

    Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.
  • by westlake (615356) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @01:58AM (#17931176)
    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.

  • by Locutus (9039) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @02:06AM (#17931222)
    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
  • by Pfhorrest (545131) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @02:09AM (#17931234) Homepage Journal
    This may be a dumb question, but when an EULA says that you may not do so-and-so... what goes in the "or else" part after that? "Or else we won't offer you tech support?" If that's all, who cares (besides businesses, etc etc; people hacking around with their own computers running things in VMs can do their own tech support). Or is it more like "or else we'll sick the FBI on you?" If that's the case, what exactly is the crime being committed?

    If I've purchased a copy of some software from an authorized distributor, it is a legal copy full stop, so I've not violated any copyright law (if downloading pirated music isn't a violation of copyright law - which it isn't, only uploading is - then running a legally purchased copy of software from an authorized distributed certainly isn't). And patents and trademarks are nowhere near applicable in this case (unless I'm reverse-engineering their software to make use of their patented techniques, or making use of their brands in advertising somewhere or some such), so it seems I'm not violating intellectual property right laws at all.

    If I'm running it on my own computer, I'm not doing anything to anyone else's physical property, so it doesn't seem like any sort of physical property laws apply either; I can do whatever the hell I want to my own property. And unless I'm using it to control an evil robot of doom and terrorize downtown Los Angeles, I'm not committing a crime directly against another person (e.g. murder, assault) either.

    Is it contract law? So just because the software says "by installing this software, you agree not to use this software in these ways", I'm suddenly bound in what I'm allowed to do with my own property? Would that hold up in court for any other kind of product? If I buy a new bicycle chain, can they put a licence agreement inside the box it came in that says by installing this bike chain, I'm agreeing not to use it to ride anywhere outside of the lower 48 states? Or rather, would any such licence be at all valid? What if they put it outside the box?

    It may sound immature, but I feel like saying to these EULA lawyers, "Oh yeah? Or else what?"

    Does anybody know what their response would be?
  • by foonf (447461) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @02:37AM (#17931394) Homepage
    I'll just go pick up a retail copy of Max OS X at Best Buy and install it on my Dell, I'm sure there's nothing against that in the license.
  • by mpe (36238) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @02:53AM (#17931468)
    But then why don't they allow you legally to run ONE copy of Vista in a VM, if that's really their worry?

    Assuming that EULAs actually have any legal basis in the first place. Even if that was the case the specific clause in question would have to have a legal basis. It isn't unknown for such documents to be stuffed full of questionable (even bogus) claims.
  • Bollocks. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DimGeo (694000) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @03:15AM (#17931528) Homepage
    You need to buy the expensive version if (you want to be legal and) you want to run inside a VM. You can dual-boot any version of any OS you'd like.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, 2007 @03:17AM (#17931536)
    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.
  • by killjoe (766577) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @03:21AM (#17931560)
    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.
  • by dreamlax (981973) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @03:26AM (#17931592)

    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.

  • by ratboy666 (104074) <fred_weigel@hotmail . c om> on Thursday February 08, 2007 @03:51AM (#17931714) Homepage Journal
    The license defines "licensed device" as "Before you use the software under a license, you must
    assign that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the "licensed device."
    A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device." (quote from the license).

    It is stated that the physical hardware is the "licensed device", so it is not possible to use these versions of Vista under a Virtual Machine (or emulation, eg. BOCHS).

  • by node 3 (115640) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @07:04AM (#17932424)

    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)?
  • by Dogtanian (588974) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @09:12AM (#17933006) Homepage

    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.
  • by Rutulian (171771) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @09:12AM (#17933010)
    Apple: You may never, under any circumstances, on any hardware, at any time, for any reason, ever run OS X under virtualization. Period.

    Where does it say that in the OS X license agreement? I only see restrictions pertaining to Apple hardware, not virtual machines.

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

    Make that twice as expensive to run Vista inside another OS. Vista Ultimate costs about $400 compared to Premium which is about $250.
  • by init100 (915886) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @09:34AM (#17933148)

    Indeed, which is why the many open source programs that require you to agree to the GPL on installation (of the binary only release!) really get my goat.

    My theory is that they do that so that people understand that the software is copyrighted even though it is free of charge. Some people tend to believe that free software is public domain, and that you can do anything you want with it, such as including it into proprietary derivative works. Those people need to realize that it is not, and that is usually when they start complaining about the GPL and the "unfairness" of not letting them use it in derivative works without also distributing the source under the GPL.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 08, 2007 @09:34AM (#17933154)
    "Whatever his reasons, our company now owns one OS X license we have absolutely no use for."

    You still aren't getting it. Dell have to pay for Windows. Apple don't have to pay for Mac OS.

    When you buy a Dell they charge you for a copy of Windows, and give the money to Microsoft. When you buy an Apple they charge you for the hardware and give you a free copy of OSX to sweeten the deal.

    If you bought a Graphics card and they bundled in a free driver disk would you complain that you don't need it because you can download drivers off the internet? Would you demand that they subtract the development cost of the drivers from the hardware? Or would that be insane?

    It is impossible to estimate the cost of OEM copies of Mac OS X because money never changes hands for them. You could estimate it as anything from the price of the CD ($0.01?) to the cost of developing the OS ($50,000,000?), but in reality any figure you put on it is meaningless.

    Apple develops OSX anyway, and subsidises its development with Mac and iPod revenue, so putting a copy in the box with each Mac costs them nothing extra and therefore costs you nothing extra.

    You might as well ask that they give iPod users a discount if they run Windows instead of Mac OS, or that Microsoft gives you a discount on Windows if you don't own an Xbox or a Zune. After all, money from Windows paid for them to develop the Zune, so why shouldn't you get a discount if you don't use it...? duh.
  • by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @10:11AM (#17933484) Journal
    You wanna run Vista? Now there's a wild concept.
  • by dlim (928138) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @10:57AM (#17934074) Journal

    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.
    It's pretty common knowledge that the average person doesn't even read EULAs. So why bother if the motive is just FUD? At least some lawyers must believe these things have legal value.
  • by CheckeredFlag (950001) on Thursday February 08, 2007 @11:33AM (#17934516)

    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.

    OS X "just works" because Apple has a very limited set of hardware configurations that they need to support. You have to admit that Microsoft has done an admirable job at supporting an almost infinite number of hardware combinations. It's really amazing that Windows works at all - especially when it relies on a lot of third party drivers, of which they have no control.

    If Apple were to allow users to install OS X on unsupported hardware, could you imagine the Apple bashing when the flood of incompatibility reports start flowing in? "OS X crashes on this motherboard using this video card and that usb device! Apple sucks!"

    Much of the success of Apple's simplicity and reliability is the direct result of being able to control both the software and hardware.

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...