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."

Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[bluephone]

If sounds like a Mac penalty because you didn't listen. They require the pricier version of Vista for ALL virtualization, not just on Macs. If you want to run Vista in a VM on a PC you're under the same requirement by the EULA.

Disingenous dupe FUD

[The Bungi]

You've reported this previously [slashdot.org], with the same FUD "OMG MS IS TEH EVILZ" slant designed to outrage everyone into an ad-impression frenzy. TFA points out (not that you did) that this refers to virtualization, and does not apply to dual-booting. The restriction applies to Windows-on-Windows as much as it does on the Mac or any other OS. One might argue that the restriction is "bad", but it's very different from the "Microsoft sticks it to poor Mac users on purpose" summary. If you don't agree to the EULA, then don't use Windows. It's that simple.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

One word: Students.

I consider that to be a consumer use of Vista in virtualization.

Mathew Ingram is late...

[michrech]

Someone beat him to this "news". Hell, it was even discussed on Slashdot [slashdot.org] before. You can read the *first* article about this here [blorge.com].

MS is shooting itself in the foot.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have tried running a legitimate XP copy (SP1) on Ubuntu with Innotek's VirtualBox - and the WGA gets the idea I am running an illegimate version of Windows even after I input my key into it (stored bought boxed version). Instead of explaining why it's bad (perhaps the license isn't pricey enough but this is only an SP1 disk so it shouldn't count should it? I didn't agree to those term on the Eula back then:) - they bring up a Survey that was extremely offensive - asking me how I felt having an illegimate copy of windows, what I would do with an illegimate copy of windows, and so on and so forth (they made sure to say "illegimate copy" in every question and generally treat you like a 5 year old idiot).

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?

[jamesl]

What difference does it make to MS if Windows Vista is installed on a Mac or Dell? A customer buying Vista at retail for a Mac sends more dollars to MS than Dell does for an OEM copy. It's a good deal for MS.

Never let facts stand in the way of a juicy conspiracy theory.

LIE: See Boot Camp

[Andrew Tanenbaum]

You can run Vista Home Basic on a Mac with Boot Camp, if you so desire. Just not from wthin OS X.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[WalterSobchak]

The title of the article is really badly researched. Virutalization is not the only way to run Vista on a Mac, when using Bootcamp you can legally use any version.

Alex

Doesn't affect anything

[Have Blue]

Boot Camp is not virtualization; it's a set of tools (firmware patch, driver CD creator, NTFS formatter with nondestructive partitioning) that allow Apple hardware to boot Vista directly. You won't violate the cheap Vista license if you use it under Boot Camp. You only need the expensive version for Parallels, which lets you run an OS in a window as an OS X app (real virtualization).

FUD

[iamacat]

You can not run the host and guest OS of Vista Home using the same key. Microsoft gives you extra permissions to run several copies of Vista business on the same machine using only one license. Nobody is stopping you from running Vista Home Basic under Parallels if you bought a dedicated license for this purpose. In fact, it would be dubious since Mac+OSX+Parallels can be viewed as simply another computer and, for all its ills, Microsoft is not practicing hardware lock-ins.

Re:Jumping to conclusions, redux.

[SiliconEntity]

Right, and keep in mind that you can install Vista on a Mac in a dual-boot configuration, and then these rules about virtualization do not apply. AFAIK you can install any version of Vista on a Mac, dual-boot, and it's perfectly legal. It's really no different than for Windows users.

Re:Dupe

[dal20402]

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

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. :)

[StarKruzr]

Specifically, Mac users. That's what I was driving at.

Re:Sick and tired

[Tickletaint]

Yeah, sure we've heard most everything before, but guess what? That comment was so uninsightful, so painfully boring and unoriginal, that it sticks out as an especially useless contribution to the discussion—and, yes, an especially redundant one.

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

[iminplaya]

This 'License' business is way out of control.

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

[myowntrueself]

Beside, Mac doesn't let you run OSX under virtualization anywhere!

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

[matth]

Can you not use TurboTax? It works just fine on a Mac.

If that was the case...

[MSFanBoi2]

VMWare would already support virtual OS X sessions under OS X, however VMWare has not done so because of concerns about just this very reason.

MSDN

[Bastardchyld]

If you need to test an app on Vista then presumably you are developing an app for Windows. If this is true then you probably already have a MSDN subscription. This subscription provides you with MSDN versions of M$ software so that you can have test enviroments to vet your software. This MSDN software comes bundled with its own license so this does not apply anyways.