Microsoft seeks premium to allow virtualization of Vista
Microsoft Corp. plans to charge and arm and a leg to allow users of Apple Computer's Intel Macs to run its next-generation Windows Vista operating system under virtualization.
In its licensing terms for Vista published this month, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant said users of Vista Home Premium and Vista Home Basic "may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Instead, Microsoft will require that users purchase a Vista Business or Vista Ultimate license, which will retail for $299 and $399, respectively, in order to emulate the Windows environment.
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device," the company wrote in the licensing agreements for the higher-priced systems.
"If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker."
Apple, which plans to allow Windows operability as part of its own next-generation "Leopard" operating system, has so far stated that it will do so through its Boot Camp software -- a dual-booting solution that runs Windows operating systems natively and without the need for emulation.
However, users of the company's new Intel Macs have so far preferred virtualization solutions such as Parallels Desktop and VMWare for running Windows on their systems. Unlike Boot Camp, which requires that users choose either Mac OS X or Windows each time they start up their machines, virtualization solutions allow both operating systems to run simultaneously.
Earlier this year, Apple took such a liking to Parallels' Desktop solution that it began advocating it over Boot Camp, making prominent mention of the software on its website and in its national television advertising campaign. It also began carrying the software in its retail stores.
While Apple has maintained that it continues to have "a plan" to incorporate Boot Camp into Leopard -- due in the first half of 2007 -- the company has declined to comment on whether it has been working behind the scenes to transition the technology into its own virtualization solution.
Word of Microsoft's Vista licensing restrictions were first noted in a post on the MacBidouille forums.
In its licensing terms for Vista published this month, the Redmond, Wash.-based software giant said users of Vista Home Premium and Vista Home Basic "may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
Instead, Microsoft will require that users purchase a Vista Business or Vista Ultimate license, which will retail for $299 and $399, respectively, in order to emulate the Windows environment.
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device," the company wrote in the licensing agreements for the higher-priced systems.
"If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker."
Apple, which plans to allow Windows operability as part of its own next-generation "Leopard" operating system, has so far stated that it will do so through its Boot Camp software -- a dual-booting solution that runs Windows operating systems natively and without the need for emulation.
However, users of the company's new Intel Macs have so far preferred virtualization solutions such as Parallels Desktop and VMWare for running Windows on their systems. Unlike Boot Camp, which requires that users choose either Mac OS X or Windows each time they start up their machines, virtualization solutions allow both operating systems to run simultaneously.
Earlier this year, Apple took such a liking to Parallels' Desktop solution that it began advocating it over Boot Camp, making prominent mention of the software on its website and in its national television advertising campaign. It also began carrying the software in its retail stores.
While Apple has maintained that it continues to have "a plan" to incorporate Boot Camp into Leopard -- due in the first half of 2007 -- the company has declined to comment on whether it has been working behind the scenes to transition the technology into its own virtualization solution.
Word of Microsoft's Vista licensing restrictions were first noted in a post on the MacBidouille forums.
Comments
From the part of the license agreement quoted in this article, seems to me that my Parallels Desktop VM becomes the "licensed device", and I would *not* be running a virtual machine on top of *that* at all! If so, then I could comply with said license terms installing a legit copy of even the most basic stripped down home version of Vista, as long as the VM *was* the licensed device (albeit that is itself a virtual device). But then, I'm neither a lawyer nor play one on YouTube.
Oh, and this doesn't affect me personally, since I'm still using Win2K (to match the local all-knowing IT dept), with an upgrade in the works any day now to XP. So shouldn't have to worry here about Vista for another 2-5 years ... if it hasn't imploded by then.
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device," the company wrote in the licensing agreements for the higher-priced systems.
"If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker."
And what's THAT about?!?! Even if I pony up for the zircon-encrusted "premium" version of Vista so I can be assured of total legitimacy when installing it under my VM (such as Parallels), I STILL can't use that installation to run ANYTHING that makes use of an MS DRM ("digital restriction management") scheme? So no WMA-contaminated content? No squirting Zune files? !?!?? And how is *this* MS-fantasy restriction going to be enforced?
Ah, maybe it's just more fuel to help motivate the switchers ....
if anything, they should offer a rebate to Apple users who want to purchase a license to use XP/Vista on their Mac (proof of ownership such as S/N, copy of receipt, etc.). this can encourage the consumer to buy more product from Microsoft. instead, they're pushing consumers away.
bad bad move. this is a tug of war apple is playing with microsoft in terms of gaining switchers and marketshare, and msoft is only encouraging apple to pull harder.
those 'tards
those I mean seriously XP should be enough for me anyway, unless I decide to play halo 2 for pc, which only runs on vista
"may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
hmmm.
My first gut-reaction interpretation would be that this is intended to prevent the end user from using a single copy of the Windows installation media to drive the native hardware, and then use that same media to install an operating system within a virtual environment on the same machine. Perhaps this is meant to clear up an ambiguous point in the XP license.
Why would anybody want to virtualize Windows on top of an existing Windows machine? It would be a relatively common thing to do if somebody wanted to do clean-room debugging of software they're developing with a pristine copy of Windows without needing to move back and forth between different physical machines.
For example, the developer may want to:
1) Make sure that they have isolated all the DLL dependencies in the software.
2) Protect the development machine from damage due to any bugs/unexpected interractions/crashes that may happen while testing the software in the virtual environment. (No Windows bashing is necessary here. We all know every jibe and joke that could be made about this point!)
If this is truly the reason behind Microsoft's position, then it sort of makes sense... They've got a history of trying to lock out some of the "higher end" features (like Netware integration) from the "home" editions of Windows, and Visual Studio is only currently supported on the Professional edition of XP. Given that the sorts of activities which would typically require Windows-on-Windows virtualization would normally not exist on the "Home" products, there's no point in allwoing it.
The fact that it appears that ProWindows-on-ProWindows virtualization may be legit without purchasing an additional license may actually end up being a money saver for development users who currently need a separate license for virtualized XP boxes.
I'd doubt that the implications of using virtual Windows sessions on Intel-based Macintosh boxes was the prime mover in this case.
In fact, I think it probably didn't even occur to M$'s technical peeps while this license limitation (or enhancement, depending on which edition of Windows you'd otherwise be inclined to buy) was first proposed.
[edit]
To be clear, my reading of the three excerpts above would be that virtualization of Vista Home editions will be OK under the same conditions as it is acceptable using XP. Specifically, a separate license is required for each installation. If you want to install Windows XP on a virtual PC running on top of an existing Windows installation, then a separate license is needed.
On the professional editions, a single licensed copy would be sufficient for both the real PC hardware, as well as for the virtual hardware. (Plus DRM-related limitations. Probably designed to intercept some obscure method of bypassing Microsoft DRM protection using hardware virtualization...)
Of course, a full reading of the complete license text may change my understanding.
I'm an MCSE, twice decorated, but couldn't be happier about moving my household away from PCs into Apple products.
Could MS abuse their customers any further? They literally treat them as the enemy.
Instead, Microsoft will require that users purchase a Vista Business or Vista Ultimate license, which will retail for $299 and $399, respectively, in order to emulate the Windows environment.
Hey guess what Microsoft, if i want to use your software on my mac (or on my PC) i will coutinue to pirate it like i have done ever since windows 95. Screw you if you think your gonna get a big payoff off your half-patched semi-acceptable final releases from me. Drop your price to something fair considering all the people using your software for the first year are guinea pigs to find the flaws, maybe ill consider paying.
I mean seriously XP should be enough for me anyway, unless I decide to play halo 2 for pc, which only runs on vista
I think this is the sentiment of many Mac users.
XP is good enough for the occasional need run a few games or get on MSN messenger etc...
Plus at $399, you might as well buy a new cheap PC with Vista loaded.
bad move by the microsoft mktg dept.
if anything, they should offer a rebate to Apple users who want to purchase a license to use XP/Vista on their Mac (proof of ownership such as S/N, copy of receipt, etc.). this can encourage the consumer to buy more product from Microsoft. instead, they're pushing consumers away.
bad bad move. this is a tug of war apple is playing with microsoft in terms of gaining switchers and marketshare, and msoft is only encouraging apple to pull harder.
Correct you are. If with the purchase of a Macbook you could add $50 and have a legal copy of Vista I think people would do that. But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? This of course beleiving all the things I have read about vista/10.5.
After all these years, we finnaly get the chance to run Microsoft OS on our systems, and its like Microsoft doesnt want it. O well
It's much easier to develop cross-platform software on one computer using a virtual machine rather than using multiple computers. And as much as one could care less about Vista, cross-platform applications need to be tested on it.