or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft seeks premium to allow virtualization of Vista
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Microsoft seeks premium to allow virtualization of Vista

post #1 of 95
Thread Starter 
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.
post #2 of 95
So are there physical restrictions on this or does MS expect users to obey the license agreement?
post #3 of 95
I guess this restriction applies to any OS, even Windows emulated from within Windows. And who'd want to run virtualized Vista anyway? Business apps are handled by XP just fine and games... they're only possible through BootCamp.
post #4 of 95
So, who does this affect, anyway? Who's going to have Vista both installed nativeley and used under emulation?
post #5 of 95
Slow news day today, eh?
post #6 of 95
So, this is sounding to me like it's aimed at having one copy of Windows installed *both* native *and* under a virtual machine. So what about us folks who aren't bothering with dual boot, and will only install & run a copy of Windows under a virtual machine?

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.
post #7 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"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 ....
post #8 of 95
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.
post #9 of 95
hilarious, so now we'll all just pirate the highest versions to install

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
MBA 13" i7/4GB/256GB

C2D MBP 2.33GHZ/2 Gig/120 Gig/256MB
Reply
MBA 13" i7/4GB/256GB

C2D MBP 2.33GHZ/2 Gig/120 Gig/256MB
Reply
post #10 of 95
they are just ASKING for piracy!
post #11 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

"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.
post #12 of 95
One word comes to mind .....BASTARDS!
post #13 of 95
This on top of only letting me move Vista once and only selling it once? The hoops you have to jump through as an MS customer are unreal. Not to mention the hassle of using Windows in the first place.

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.
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
Emailing video from iPhone to Apple TV , sort of..
Reply
post #14 of 95
Listen M$: you have NO right! I will never ever purchase any M$ product again. Ever!
post #15 of 95
Say what? Microsoft has no right, you say? Of course they do, it's their football and they can play it however they want. None of us are entitled to anything here. If ya don't like it, don't buy it.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #16 of 95
Quote:
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.
post #17 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by aiolos


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.
post #18 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoopaDrive

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
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
Get a matte screen cover and quit whining...glossy displays rock.
Reply
post #19 of 95
I'm not really sure why Virtualization should really be necessary much longer for Intel Macs- especially on a computer with supported hardware. Hopefully Apple is working on a solution which does not require virtualization but allows you to quickly switch between OS's.
post #20 of 95
Luckily for me I have no need (or desire) to run Windows on any Mac platform ppc, intel or otherwise. Its just OSX all the way.
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
"An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest."
"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither." -Ben Franklin
Reply
post #21 of 95
To all the people asking why someone would need Vista: software development.

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.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #22 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut

I'm not really sure why Virtualization should really be necessary much longer for Intel Macs- especially on a computer with supported hardware. Hopefully Apple is working on a solution which does not require virtualization but allows you to quickly switch between OS's.

Now that's a very good proposition. With the amount of memory computers have nowadays, it should be possible to run multiple OSes at the same time and just switch between them.

Then again, what are the minimum system requirements for Vista again?
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #23 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut

I'm not really sure why Virtualization should really be necessary much longer for Intel Macs- especially on a computer with supported hardware. Hopefully Apple is working on a solution which does not require virtualization but allows you to quickly switch between OS's.

Like fast user switching.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

 

Get the lowdown on the coming collapse:  http://www.cbo.gov/publication/45010

Reply
post #24 of 95
I'm waiting for the Santa Rosa platform and Leopard to show up in Macs before I switch. This will happen to coinside nicely with tax refund time. I still need Windows to run WordPerfect and Quicken 2004. (Later versions of Quicken have dropped support for .qif files, which locks me out of my bank). I was going to purchase Vista to also run on the new Macs, but the pricing and licencing is just getting too ridiculous. I still have a legitimate copy of Windows 98SE which runs both of these programs fine, and which I can install on the Macs under Parallels (as I understand it). I won't be needing Windows to play games, network, or connect to the internet. I wonder how many other potential customers Microsoft has now licensed out of their profit pool?
post #25 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by satchmo

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.

I am sorry, but am I missing something here?

If I am not mistaken, to run XP on the new Macs, you have to have a legit copy in the first place, i.e., that is paid for and not activated on another machine.

Does it not require that when you load XP on a Mac now that you have to Activate it either via your internet connection or by phone? Now you can tell them on the phone that you have a new computer and usually they won't question whether you are keeping the old one. Try it again the next day and you may get flack.

So with Vista, in order for Microsoft to protect its franchise you will be able to activate it on two machines, although you are only supposed to have it on one.

I realize that for us Mac'rs, that is a hard one to accept. Our machines are automatically installed with the current OS as part of the purchase agreement. Not realizing that we are actually paying for it. Using your install disks from a newly purchased Mac and upgrading one of your or older Mac's is actually verboten. Right? Great that Apple doesn't really care or for that matter have to because its OS is not loaded on machines that Apple did not manufacture.

I for one can't really find fault with Microsoft. I find fault with those that buy PCs in the first place and have to buy or licence a third-party OS. Let's face it. Microsoft is well aware that Vista (Home) will sell well, but a lot of the pcs will be, or attempted to be, loaded with illegal or pirated copies from older machines still in service somewhere, from friends, and or family, especially dad's office. Hard part here is that, "…it will be possible to install Vista (even a legally purchase copy) only twice, so you will be able to change your hardware only once; after (that) you will have to buy a new license."
post #26 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

Now that's a very good proposition. With the amount of memory computers have nowadays, it should be possible to run multiple OSes at the same time and just switch between them.

By definition, an operating system has complete control of the low-level hardware.

The act of paritioning up the system resources so that two OSes can run simultaneously inherently requires hardware virtualization. Sure, the most common implementations visually depict it as one operating system "hosting" the other. Call it whatever you want, you're still using "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware".

No matter how you shake the tree, all you're going to end up with is coconuts. (I honestly don't know where I came up with that one...)

And I stand by my assertion that this has more to do with the ability of some versions of Vista being able to host copies of themselves in a virtual environment and other versions requiring separate licensing of the virtual editions, than to do with cross-platform virtualization.
post #27 of 95
I bought a copy of XP Pro (call me an idiot) and installed it under Boot Camp. I had to activate it. I then installed under Parallels. Guess what? Had to activate it there too, but my copy has already been activated. This type of fair use restriction is what leads people to piracy.
post #28 of 95
Duped
post #29 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by zzcoop

So, who does this affect, anyway? Who's going to have Vista both installed nativeley and used under emulation?

QA testers
so now they will a system for each version of vista
post #30 of 95
Purely for selfish reasons, I wish Apple would just buy Intuit and fix Quicken on the Mac so I won't ever have to dirty my fingers and run Windows on emulation ever again for the rest of my life.
post #31 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by mike12309

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.

If you don't like their setup, why not just swear off using it at all?
post #32 of 95
Even with the restrictions, it's still a lot better than the restrictions I've seen of what Apple allows of OS X.
post #33 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shookster

So are there physical restrictions on this or does MS expect users to obey the license agreement?

Given that their DRM won't even work, I really don't see how they plan on enforcing this. Regardless if you just want to run Windows Apps and play Games, XP is the only way to go.
post #34 of 95
This is just one more reason I want to see products using the WINE technology to take over. Crossover is one example. You won't need to load Windows at all, just the Windows app. MS free computing is what I'm after.

http://www.winehq.com/
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/
post #35 of 95
This is great news.

Microsoft making decisions like this is great for the industry. Fewer people paying for Vista. XP will be around for a long, long time at these type of prices. (Plus, XP will be dirt cheap on ebay.)

Plus, even if I wanted Vista, there are hundreds of ways to get a legal copy which will work for far less than this price.
post #36 of 95
In Steve Job's mind-- charging more than what each song is worth ($.99) just leads to piracy. It seems as though this is the same case with Window$, yea, again only $.99

Microshit better think of a REAL good way to stop users from just using "Home" edition on Parallels.
post #37 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWhaler

Plus, even if I wanted Vista, there are hundreds of ways to get a legal copy which will work for far less than this price.

The prices you might find on their web site or their press releases are the list prices, not the actual sell price.
post #38 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnyboy

they are just ASKING for piracy!

Not asking...DEMANDING.
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
Quote:
Originally Posted by appleinsider vBulletin Message

You have been banned for the following reason:
Three personal attacks in one post. Congratulations.
Date the ban will be lifted:...
Reply
post #39 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

Even with the restrictions, it's still a lot better than the restrictions I've seen of what Apple allows of OS X.

What? Like Apple's Family pack, getting 5 licenses for an extra $70? Or their unlimited client server licenses. Apple rules when it comes to licensing options.
post #40 of 95
This is just another ploy by Microsoft to drive away customers.

Exceedingly high prices, draconian licensing schemes, per-user charges for everything, and — oh yeah — incredibly crappy, buggy, virus-prone code. These are all clever tactics to see how long it will take for the people to stop slavishly throwing money at them.

So far, most people seem to think that computers are supposed to suck royally and cost a fortune, so they just keep giving MS more dough. Eventually maybe people will see the light. Heck... Americans even eventually figured out what an incompetent fool Bush is. It just takes a LOT of bludgeoning about the head to get it across sometimes.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Microsoft seeks premium to allow virtualization of Vista