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:Summary incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Summary incorrect. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah (Score:5, Funny)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Summary incorrect. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be curious to hear an official Microsoft response on this. My reading of it agrees with yours that it seems to be talking about the license not applying to a VM running on the licensed device.
Consider the home license: "You may not use the software installed on the licensed d
Re:Summary incorrect. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's not just cars, *anything* can be sold by charging more for extra 'features'. That applies to salt and breakfast cereal to 747s. It's called product differentiation and it's pretty much Economics 101. How does Microsoft become 'monopolistic' by charging more for certain editions -- they're merely trying to maximize their revenue -- when ev
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Summary incorrect. (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
older news (Score:5, Funny)
Uhmm (Score:2, Redundant)
Virtualization, in the sense that it's meant in this usage, only works if the operating system would have worked natively on the original hardware. IE, those Mac users could boot up to Windows with no problems. The issue only arises if they want to run it in a virtual machine monitor, which has myriad other uses than running applications for one OS "under" another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mac with Bootcamp is not a virtual machine (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Apple has forever locked out non-Apple hardware from Apple OS. That is one of the reasons that MS is a significantly larger player. MS said, "bring the hardware and we will (somewhat) embrace it". Apple's strategy has been to own both the hardware and OS. Microsoft's strategy has been to (mostly) allow all comers. I really can't say which philosophy is better. Apple and Microsoft both ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
you're missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And Apple makes it easy to run OS X? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
idiotic (Score:2)
Alternatives (Score:3)
* 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... (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:Only with Parallels/VMWare, Not with Boot Camp (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
This is going too far ;) (Score:2, Interesting)
We should now all go out and buy a Mac.
Seriously, they do mac some pretty cool hardware, buy one. you won't regret it.
Coherence changed my life (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Coherence changed my life (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (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!
mac == pc???? (Score:2)
Kill your early adopters, that's the ticket (Score:2)
This obviously doesn't apply to Bootcamp (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, you can't run Vista at all... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:4, Informative)
Well done (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Write article where apple is getting hard done by
2) Dis microsoft
3) ???
4) PROFIT!
Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hi, I'm somewhat new to Slashdot... (Score:4, Interesting)
hmm.. I vote - don't care - safe to ignore. (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation, I could break that baby in court after thirty seconds of argument before a judge.
-GiH
Just a law student.
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
This is not discriminating against macs (Score:3, Interesting)
Or am I reading it wrong and Vista Home prevents running it in a VM even when you aren't using that same licensed copy of Vista Home elsewhere (e.g, if its running inside a VMWare image hosted on a linux machine)?
What is the definition of Virtual Hardware? (Score:3, Insightful)
Parallels, the example given by many, requires hardware virtualization. Thus, this EULA should not restrict users from utilizing it to install and use Vista.
Macs are *pretending* to be PC's? (Score:3, Funny)
Funny, and I thought nowadays Apple sells PC's pretending to be Macs.
Bollocks. (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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'.
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:4, Funny)
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:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (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 l
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More importantly, read about Wikipedia's stance on legal advice [wikipedia.org]. Finally, remember not to get legal advice from the internet. Not from Slashdot, and not from Wikipedia.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I wish it were so... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 attem
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.answers.com/topic/sherman-antitrust-ac
NOTE: look for the part called "tying arrangement".
LoB LOL
Re:Apples moves into VM (Score:4, Interesting)
-----
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:das@doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
To: thurrott@windowsitpro.com
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?
EULAs: This may be a dumb question... (Score:3, Insightful)
If I've purchased a copy of some software from an authorized distri
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe, but in a very sluggish and almost useless way.
Call me when I can run OSX on a VM under OSX. Oh and in such a way as its supported both by Apple and the vendor of the VM system.
Tell me that I'm wrong and that Apple supports running OSX in a VM, go on I'd like that. A lot.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:MAC users who want to run Vista Home (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, exactly. Like for me it's Microsoft Paint.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Because that's wasteful and stupid. (Score:2)
Unfortunately many things are only available for Windows, and people are often required to run a Windows app for one reason or another. Why not have the ability to run everything on one machine? If you have no use for it, fine, but I'd think it should be obvious that it would make a l
MAC != Mac (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
ed is the standard text editor.
Re:Surprise!!!...not (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its perfectly logical and yet another
Wait a minute...Microsoft's main support is their "Knowledge Base"
Re:Why not? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The point is not that the "cheaper" versions of Vista won't work in a virtual machine, it is that it is contrary to the license terms.
If you are going to violate a license agreement, it is cheaper to violate something cheaper than MSDN.
Re:oh boo f'ing who.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.