MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac 545
ktwdallas writes "Mathew Ingram from Canada's Globe and Mail writes that Microsoft will require at least the $299 Business version of Vista or higher if installing on a Mac with virtualization. Running the cheaper Basic or Premium versions would be a violation of their user agreement. According to the article, Microsoft's reasoning is 'because of security issues with virtualization technology'. Sounds suspiciously like a 'Mac penalty' cost that Microsoft is trying to justify."
Jumping to conclusions, redux. (Score:5, Informative)
Disingenous dupe FUD (Score:4, Informative)
Really, how many times are you planning to run this "story"? Maybe the plan is to stop once the FUD meme is spread to your satisfaction like [slashdot.org] all [slashdot.org] the [slashdot.org] others [slashdot.org] before [slashdot.org]?
There are enough things to criticize Microsoft over. These FUD campaigns are going to backfire one of these days. You can only claim you're being FUD'ed for so long before everyone realizes you're no better.
Re:So? (Score:2, Informative)
I consider that to be a consumer use of Vista in virtualization.
Mathew Ingram is late... (Score:4, Informative)
MS is shooting itself in the foot. (Score:2, Informative)
None of this makes me want to go out and buy MS products more - the ones I have apparently don't work even though the terms on the EULA back then have never mentioned virtualization.
They won't allow even Security upgrades based on this. I can forsee lawsuits coming from network owners and ISP because they are refusing to patch their own defective software and allowing so many computers to get compromised and botnets to form, etcetera. Fine, don't let me get upgrades for greater functionality, but at least give me those security patches.
Like the RIAA, the tighter MS grasps, the more will slip through there fingers. I refuse to be extorted to pay a higher price for software than what I already paid for it just because it is running in a situation they have not forseen 4 years back when the copy was new.
Why would MS care? (Score:2, Informative)
Never let facts stand in the way of a juicy conspiracy theory.
LIE: See Boot Camp (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (Score:3, Informative)
Alex
Doesn't affect anything (Score:5, Informative)
FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dupe (Score:5, Informative)
Apple's (not "Mac's"; a Mac is a computer, not a company) license doesn't say anything about virtualization. It requires you to run the OS on Apple hardware. If you want to run OS X on a virtual machine within Linux or Windows on your Mac, that's just fine.
Yes. :) (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sick and tired (Score:0, Informative)
Look, the so-called reality is that moderation means whatever the moderators want it to mean. I thought we were over the whole age of reason, age of progress bullshit; I hate to say it, grandpa, but your enlightenment values died with modernity, and if you can't cope, maybe you ought to have died as well.
Re:Disingenous dupe FUD (Score:2, Informative)
It seems that way from my point of view also, but apparently business is thriving as IP law becomes more powerful.
When and how did this ever change?
297 years ago [copyrighthistory.com].
You're on a good rant. It should be heard far and wide.
Re:Dupe (Score:4, Informative)
IIRC, the OSX license only states that you can only run it on Apple hardware.
Since a virtual machine running on a Mac *is* running on Apple hardware there should be no problem running OSX on a VM running on Apple hardware.
Re:Sick and tired (Score:4, Informative)
If that was the case... (Score:2, Informative)
MSDN (Score:3, Informative)