Microsoft says 'No' to virtualization and Vista Home, but previously said Yes!

I see MS have back tracked on their earlier commitment to allow users to run Vista Home editions as a guest operating system!!

story here

 

Is that better or worst than "Apple says no to virtualization and OSX and has always said No!"

Yeah it sucks that MS is doing this, but it's really their choice. My guess is that it's tied to how Vista 'activates.' Of course activation is stupid, but it's how they go about it. Apple chooses to put a DRM chip in each of the computers, guess that's the advantage to controlling the hardware....

 

Not quite.

The argument is that Vista Home editions would be used in a home environment only with users that might not be as computer savvy as those in a corporate environment. So, since they consider any virtualization technology to be inferior security wise, and since the home user doesn't have an IT department to fall back on in case of trouble, Microsoft's Vista license limits the ability to install Vista Home in a virtualized environment.

I think it's BS anyway. Most people who even know what virtualization is are savvy enough to help themselves in times of trouble. I think it's just a way to extort more money from people.

 

There is no way they can possibly enforce this anyway...the most they can hope to accomplish is to engage a game of cat and mouse with what used to be satisfied customers. Once again...what is this going to do? I'll tell you...it'll push more people to pirate software. Why not? When it's easier and more effective to do so...it only encourages it moreso. This only really stops honest people from using their product easily...More smart moves from Mr. Softie...

 

I expect what they will do is what the recording industry has done. Require by law that vendors of enabling software/hardware put DRM code in their product that will prevent it and their customers from abusing the EULA of Windows. That has the secondary advantage of preserving MSFT's role of puppeteer in the software world.

 

Is it?

What does copyright law say about what one is allowed to do with a copy of a copyrighted work? I can read a book in a bathtub or in bed if I want, and I doubt that any note in the book, hidden therein by the author or a publisher, can legally compel me to limit my choices.

Just reject the licence agreement. You already paid for the software. You are not allowed to make copies and give them to other people, copyright law forbids that. But I want to know which law forces you to accept a contract you do not want to sign.

Click on "I agree" if you like, because you can interact with copyrighted items in your own house as you like (unless American property rights are much weaker than their European equivalents), you just must not distribute copies of any copyrighted work without the copyright holders permission.

(Note that I am not promoting illegal behaviour. I am promoting the idea that certain behaviour is not illegal at all.)

What Microsoft can do is withhold support for running Vista Home in a virtual machine. Call them with a problem and they don't have to help you. That is fine.

 

Technically, they're equivalent. Pragmatically, MSFT's decision is "worst". Given their monopoly position and that critical applications run only in Windows, MSFT's decision has far greater impact than Apple's. I'd still prefer OS X be available for virtualization on Apple hardware but it does create issues for them at upgrade time if an upgrade breaks 500,000 virtual machines. That is an issue for Microsoft as well, and given the lower margins on the home edition and the Bill's predisposition to remain the wealthiest individual on the planet, they're going to do what they do best.

 

They're not even close to being equivalent. As far as Apple is concerned your version of Mac OS X is nothing more than an integral part of the Apple Hardware that they sold you...it's a package...this is not the case with MS who has never professed to being a PC vendor. In any case...I still stand by my assertion that this is just another situation that they cannot possibly hope to technically control. I can understand their fear...they are losing the ability to the final arbiter between hardware and software...by virtue of products like parallels and VMWare...no one likes losing control...especially monopolistic giants like MSFT.

 

I was thinking in terms of moral equivalency which is how I understood the question, not technical or marketing similes.

 

That OS-X is an integral part of the hardware may no longer be the case with the Intel platform. If for some reason, I did not desire to run OS-X, I could uninstall it from my MacBook and install and run Windows natively.

For hackers that know how to address a hidden bit on the CPU of a plane vanilla PC, it is also possible to now install OS-X.

 

Can you purchase and/or build an Apple computer without simultaneously getting Mac OS X? Can you or have you ever been able to buy an upgrade copy of OS X that was licensed for anything but upgrading Apple hardware? How about the same questions but replace OS X with Windows, and Apple with MS? Nuf said...

Arbitrary hurdle or not...MS is not a PC vendor and therefore has no "true" need to control whether or not their software is run any one particular machine....virtual or not. It may very well be possible to run Mac OS X on (insert-whatever-you-like-here), but they never have and likely never will sell it that way or condone it in any shape, form, or fashion. That is simply not the case for MS. They have historically not cared about what hardware you ran their OS on...whether it was virtual or otherwise, and they have sold their product as such. Now...this is purely a business decision by these respective companies...but it is a clear distinction nonetheless. So any insinuation that MS is doing the same thing as Apple because Apple doesn't allow virtualization is distorting the truth and is spewing nothing but fallacious crud.

 

Perhaps they have no need to control where their software is run as you say, but in fact they are doing it none the less. All that is left to know is why, and even that is not terribly necessary and probably boring when it is known.

This last part is no longer true. They expressly do not allow installing the home edition of Vista in virtual machines. Your entire rant is falling apart by Microsoft's actions.

Perhaps - but you have failed miserably to make that case.

And yet it is so true. Neither Apple nor Microsoft will allow you to install software for which you have purchased a license in a virtual machine environment. It is really that simple.

Now for my part I am unhappy with both camps equally, and it is the only intellectually honest position one can take. It would be a clear double standard to condemn Microsoft for disallowing me to install my Vista home edition in a virtual machine but not condemn Apple for disallowing me to install OS X in a virtual machine. But I also recognize that they are free to make those decisions and that I can always install some other OS rather than either. And I an also purchase a generic Intel powered machine and kick them both out of my life by installing Solaris.

 

Is there some part of the word "historically" that is unclear? Maybe we should break out the definition of precedent for you?

I think it's pretty clear...Apple makes their own machines...there is nothing but Apple's management stopping them from offering OS X on non-Apple hardware...hmmm...sounds like a business decision to me.

Repeat after me...Apple has never licensed their OS for use on anything but the hardware that they sell...MS makes no hardware (PC's at least) that their OS's typically run on and have historically licensed their OS's on just about anything that would take it. It's just not the same...it's a red herring argument at best.

Would I like to be able to run Mac OS X in a virtual environment? Of course I would...heck...I'd like to be able to dual boot my PCs with Mac OS X as well...but it ain't gonna happen yet and it's never been blessed to happen before (Sure...I too can find hacks and cracks...but they're still just that...hacks and cracks).

In any case, the simple fact is that it is a moot point anyway. The only thing that their decision does is prevent people from receiving support from them and also alienates previously good paying customers. The main point here is that it is MS and not Apple that is at risk of losing customers through decisions like this...sure...Apple doesn't get these customers due to its boneheaded decisions...but it never had any to begin with...MS does have thousands upon thousands of people interested in and currently running their OS's on various virtual machine technology. Surely this will not be the death of a giant like MSFT...but if they come out with some sort of technology that accomplishes virtualization of Home Basic or Premium themselves...they better hope a left-leaning administration never comes to power again in this country or they're gonna be in a world of anti-trust hurt again.

 

It is perfectly clear and irrelevant. Today is not found in history. It's found, well, now. What has happened, happened. The hand, having writ, moves on. It's dead, Jim. It is an ex-parrot. It has left this earthly coil. The decisions being made in Palo Alto and Redmond are being made in the present.

Follow the bouncing ball... Microsoft has never licensed Vista Home for installation on virtual machines. What happened 10 or 20 or 1 years ago doesn't matter because, lemme check... yes, it's June of 2007 and this is the world we live in at this time and we are talking about current events.

And, by the way, running OS X on a Mac Book Pro is Apple hardware . Even more egregious when you think about it.

 

Their ridiculous reasoning is simple, TO GET MORE MONEY.

How convenient, Business and Ultimate are THE MOST EXPENSIVE versions of Vista. It's BS!

 

The whole scheme is about 'artificial market segmentation'. Microsoft is artificially placing limits on the license agreement on what one can and cannot do with software in regards to how much you paid for it, pretty much.

Meanwhile, if you use software in a manner that violates the licence agreement, you're in breach of contract. That falls under civil law. Copyright infringement, on the other hand, can fall under both criminal and civil law. Anyways, that's how I understand it... so it's illegal anyway, but under different terms.

 

Better than television....

Reading all of the high-minded discussion here.
Vista Home Premium installs and activates fine in Parallels, both v2.5 and 3.0. If MS doesn't want to support the configuration, fine. But, if you are savvy enough to be using Parallels in the first place, do you really need MS support? Are they going to ban you from using the MS Knowledge Base?! Having to call MS phone support is a sentence worse than death row (actually, death row prisoners usually get their outcome quicker)!
So, all of the great intellectual rants notwithstanding, I don't see the problem...

 

Perhaps you don't see a problem because you're not very intellectual. There are consequences to being foolish: http://forum.parallels.com/thread11690.html

 

gee, thanks dkp

for pointing out that I'm "not very intellectual". That explains a great deal of my life! Wonder how no one ever picked up on it before!
Fact remains: Vista Home works fine with Parallels -- I've seen it -- and problems with "support", whether from MS or Nova Development, are, in practice, more theoretical than actual (do you imagine that THIS FORUM, for instance, isn't useful for a Vista Home VM user???).
So have your little intellectual wank and thank you very much for the flame.

 

I didn't say you weren't intellectual - I offered it as a possibility for your inability to understand the obvious. In fact that question has never been asked. It has been answered rather clearly though. And in fact it was you who began making assertions about intellect with the intent of insulting members of this forum. All that's done is to backfire on you.

If you are going to continue to advocate violating the Microsoft EULA, the law, acceptable social behavior, and the simple rules of the forum then I'd encourage the moderators to yank your account.