MS Requiring More Expensive Vista if Running Mac

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."

"security issues with virtualization technology"

[nurb432]

Sooooo does that also include their virtualization products? Hmmmm?

This seems sort of counter productive to me, i would think they would want peopele to run vista on as many machines as they can.. Especially if there is a chance they can push a user away from another OS. But then again, they are a monopoly, they dont always have to do what makes sence.

The "defectivebydesign" tag...

[StarKruzr]

... was never so appropriate.

"Security vulnerabilities?" You mean how you can isolate a VM away from the rest of the world and if it gets infected with a virus, you can just shut it off, blow it away and start over?

THAT kind of security vulnerability? How incredibly, incredibly lame.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[bluephone]

Well, you're under the same penalty if you use Parallels, or MS's own Virtual PC, but yes.

Re:The "defectivebydesign" tag...

[Frumious Wombat]

The primary "Defect" here is that number of different Vista versions are being decided by a former toilet paper salesman [microsoft.com], rather than by any sane engineering rationale. There ought to be no more than three; "Client", "Server", "Really Big Server", ala NT 4.0. Cut the consumer-confusing price "optimization", and clone that feature from MacOS (or their own past) as well.

In rant mode, one could argue that they ought to charge you more if you run without virtualization from a more secure operating system, because you're going to have more problems. I'd love to see a Vista install instruction sheet that begins with, "have a competent admin install and secure Solaris-10 + VMWare on your laptop..."

Re:Fuck moof.

[fishbowl]

I switched from Solaris to Linux, and then from Linux to MacOSX. That last switch was driven by the quality of the MacBook Pro, its power/portability ratio, and it power management. I considered several other notebooks, but each had some annoying factor that made it inferior as a Linux notebook. So I bought a MacBook Pro, and I run OSX on it. The last thing I want is anything that would require me to run Windows on it, VM or not, dual boot or not. I cannot even imagine what application that might be. If I did find such a thing, I would hope I could just use one of my Win2000 licenses under some VM or dual boot system.

Re:To hell with Microsoft

[rob_squared]

I think I'll remember government efficiency first. I've known illegal aliens who've driven and have had jobs for years without getting caught. Not to mention drug laws that go ignored. And as a prime example, sodomy laws and laws against vibrators that are on the books yet do nothing.

And besides, it'll be Microsoft and other software/hardware companies that force the upgrade, not the government.

Re:Sick and tired

[that this is not und]

Isn't Turbo Tax from the company who were installing spyware in your boot sector awhile back? I always use Tax Cut instead because of that.

Re:Disingenous dupe FUD

[iminplaya]

Most laws are written for the benefits of specific segments of the economy and personal gain, IP law in particular. Prohibition is another set of laws meant to prop up another segment, the law enforcement and prison industries. And yes, I am talking about the business of IP law that is thriving because of the present law. Anybody who tries to apply economics or law equally to everybody would be called a communist. The set of laws we have now are to create an economic stratification that causes money to flow, giving everybody a chance to skim. I can no longer say if it's good or bad. It is simply the accepted way of human interaction. Believe me, I feel the same way about licenses that you do. Check previous posts. I see IP law for what it is, and it ain't purdy. I'm simply trying to give an honest opinion from the point of view of the other side, since honesty is not exactly their forte, and would only show that they are butt naked.

Re:Sick and tired

[ozmanjusri]

Did you happen to miss the anti-trust trial, US Govt vs. Microsoft?

I heard about it.

Please tell us about the penalty imposed after the conviction, and tell us how it affected Microsoft's ability to maintain their monopoly and the 85% profit margins which went with being an abusive monopoly.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[Antique Geekmeister]

But keep in mind that Vista, and other MS operating systems, are very much designed to "phone home". This is especially true with their "Unwanted License Testing", also known as "Windows Genuine Advantage", that keeps trying to update and install itself at every update cycle.

The result is that Microsoft can, and probably will, start detecting the virtualization environments and "informing" users of their license violations. How they do this is probably a matter of negotiation among their sales managers and lawyers at a weekly meeting.