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 - Page 2

post #41 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78

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.

The OS pricing is better but that wasn't what I was talking about. Show me where you can virtualize OS X. Say, run Panther within Tiger. Or run multiple Tiger virtualizations. Their license doesn't allow running it on non-Apple hardware at all, so you can't run Tiger on a Windows machine at all, virtualized or not.
post #42 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abster2core

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."

What ??!! I knew there were restrictions, but only two installations ? And then you have to buy a new license ? That's criminal !

<Gordon Gekko>Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right; greed works.</Gordon Gekko>

post #43 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by IQ78

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.

Don't forget the little things - like no activation, no transfer restrictions, no CAL licensing, and no triggering "re-activation" by upgrading. Golly - it's almost like you own what you bought!!
post #44 of 95
Wow...

4 pages:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.pdf

14 pages:
http://download.microsoft.com/docume...1210b71b13.pdf

Granted, Apple uses a more condensed format, but still... even Apple's URL is simpler.

The most telling part is that Apple has basically one paragraph about how the software can be used. MS has page after page... much of it concerning how one goes about trying to use it and/or what may break as a result. Sounds like so much fun.
post #45 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison

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

Yup.
Quote:
The act of paritioning up the system resources so that two OSes can run simultaneously inherently requires hardware virtualization.

You make that statement as if it's a hard fact. I don't see it that way.

If you make the assumption that only one OS is ever running at any given time, and each OS has access to it's own separate section of memory and hard drive space, then the problem becomes much simpler. The tricky part would be to save and restore a snapshot of the hardware state each time a switch is made. This could very likely be done through the existing support for hibernation/sleep mode within each OS (ie. put one OS to sleep when switching to the other).

I think the main hurdle to be overcome would be to somehow have the computer "partition" memory so that one OS doesn't clobber the other's memory. This would likely have to be done through the BIOS or similar low-level settings software.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #46 of 95
As long as XP runs the latest AutoCAD, it will do fine in Parallels for me.
Hard-Core.
Reply
Hard-Core.
Reply
post #47 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buck

I guess this restriction applies to any OS, even Windows emulated from within Windows. And who'd want to run virtualized Vista anyway?

Will there be any other option when Vista is released and one can no longer buy Windows XP at retail?

Steve
post #48 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison

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!)

Developers would be MSDN subscribers typically, who operate under very different EULA agreements.

Steve
post #49 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.

I doubt you would pay for it, regardless of price.

Steve
post #50 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

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.

If you are a developer than you are (or should be) an MSDB subscriber, and you have a different EULA licensing agreement to handle this sort of scenario. You will probably (note that I said "probably") be able to install on up to 10 machines.

Steve
post #51 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by demenas

Will there be any other option when Vista is released and one can no longer buy Windows XP at retail?


http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

This shows the general policy, it looks like 12 after the release of Vista. There will probably be a lot of retail and OEM packages out there, just that MS won't make more after that point.
post #52 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider

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.

Exception: gamers
post #53 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by hypoluxa

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.

I like this kind of thinking very much indeed.
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
" I will not commit anything to memory that I can get from another source . . . "
ALBERT EINSTEIN
Reply
post #54 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/lifecycle/default.mspx

This shows the general policy, it looks like 12 after the release of Vista. There will probably be a lot of retail and OEM packages out there, just that MS won't make more after that point.

Thanks.

Steve
post #55 of 95
oh everyone of you that bash M$ crack me up completely. Waaaah, Have to pay to virtualize the OS.

Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.

I'd prefer to PAY for an option compared to NOT HAVE IT AT ALL.

GO bash Jobs over this one. I'd love to have a virtual OS X set up to develop on. The bad guy here is APPLE, not M$. At least you CAN. It might COST you, but YOU bloody CAN do it.


and as a windows developer, being able to install the OS and all my tools ONE TIME and then be able to save off a clean copy for later use / backup saves me days of shuffling DVD's and CDs when I start on a new project.

Virtualization is what you'll all be doing soon...be it for a browser appliance to keep the junk off your system or for multiple OS's, it'll come sooner than you think.


but bashing M$ over this? look in your own backyard first boys and girls. Its not all happy at the bbq, because Steve-o doesn't bring the beef, just some veggies that are tasty and look good.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #56 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.

Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
post #57 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

Its not all happy at the bbq, because Steve-o doesn't bring the beef, just some veggies that are tasty and look good.

I'd rather have Steve's tasty veggies then Bill's rotten meat.
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
17" i7 Macbook Pro (Mid 2010), Mac Mini (early 2006), G3 B&W, G3 Beige Tower, 3 G3 iMacs (original, bondi, snow), Power Mac 7600/132, Power Mac 7100/100, Power Mac 6100/60, Performa 5280, Performa...
Reply
post #58 of 95
Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, I would like to see Mac OSX being ran on Pc's just as Windblows running on Macs. Its going to be a pissing contest soon because Microstink is upset that Apple owns the MP3 market. But it goes both ways and at the moment Apple has a monopoly and so does the Microstink.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #59 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by ryanx27

Exception: gamers

Exception number 2: product designers (Autodesk Inventor).
post #60 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.

Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.

I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #61 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock

Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??

Why not? I don't think it takes much imagination to find good reasons, so much for Mac people being more creative, I guess. It would be a good "sandbox" for security testing, if the image gets corrupt, delete it and copy a new one from a backup. You can also more easily manage servers by moving a virtual server between system. System backups are a lot easier too. Transferring working environments between machines is easy, so you don't have to worry about whether all the software, plug-ins, documents are copied properly to the new machine, you copy one large file and it's done. Also, you can test among several different OS revisions on one computer without rebooting. If you have an app that hasn't been updated to work with the latest version of OS X, you don't have to hold back or reboot, just run that software on the virtual machine.
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock

Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??

testing software, testing apple's updates to make sure they don't kill your 1. machine, 2. your software you are developing. Installing a server. Creating a virtual OS to run applications on that you are unsure you want to hork up your system. Hiding activity from [insert tin foil hat here] by having a virtual machine you can clone and delete...the list is enormous.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #63 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.

I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.

It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeTheRock

Now, remind me again, WHY would you do this??

I think the question for me is: why not?

I personally like having my technology as open as possible for any possible use I could ever imagine. But if you like being locked down by the world of business, then by all means, go right ahead.
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #65 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.

I'll let the OSx86 guys do that for me. (in a country which doesn't enforce those laws)
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #66 of 95
If I choose to pay them for a full OS, I'm going to use it how I please. "Intellectual property" is BS anyway.
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Reply
What's the frequency, Kenneth?
Reply
post #67 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by auxio

Well, I've heard of people getting OS X to run under VMWare, so I know it's possible.

I haven't read through the agreement with a fine tooth comb, so you'll have to quote the section which is violated when running under an emulator.

Yes. Apple has never stopped that from working.
post #68 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

It all comes down to Apple's TPM (trusted platform module) and EFI (extensible firmware interface). Go build an emulator for those that circumvents/bypasses them by breaking Apple's keys and you'll have Apple banging on your virtual and actual door. Something about DMCA and reverse engineering will be in the lawsuit or cease and desist.

Since not only hasn't Apple prevented OS X running under VMware before, but has publicized it, it will be interesting to see if they have changed their policy.
post #69 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by wtfk

If I choose to pay them for a full OS, I'm going to use it how I please. "Intellectual property" is BS anyway.

It's pretty obvious that you don't have any.
post #70 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by demenas

If you are a developer than you are (or should be) an MSDB subscriber, and you have a different EULA licensing agreement to handle this sort of scenario. You will probably (note that I said "probably") be able to install on up to 10 machines.

The company I work for has an MSDN subscription, but I personally don't. And not all the work I do is for the company, so I'm not always covered by that EULA.

I don't know the current terms of the developer EULA, or how it will change for Vista, but let's hope MS handles this intelligently...
 
Reply
 
Reply
post #71 of 95
[QUOTE=nascarnate326] But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? /QUOTE]

Say what? Wow, this comment has completely slipped under the proverbial radar. You would normally be run off these boards for making a comment like this, yet there has been nothing...
post #72 of 95
i read that wording differently than some people do. I can kind of see how it looks like it means you cant run a copy of the OS in a virtual machine on the same licensed copy of the OS, where youd have to buy 2 copies...

I dont read it that way though, i read it as you have to have ultimate or corprate to run it under any virtualization on any OS even with a different license.

Mainly because, if your "licensed device" is say the Parallels virtual machine, and you install Windows on it, you are running that copy of Windows in a virtual environment. The text said it cannot be run on that device in a virtual or emulated system, which is what it is your doing if you try to license it to that single virtual machine.
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx

Listen M$: you have NO right! I will never ever purchase any M$ product again. Ever!

Oh geez.

As someone else mentioned, Microsoft has every right. They created the OS, they dictate the terms.

You, as a consumer have every right to buy or not buy their products.
2.0 GHz Macbook, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD
Reply
2.0 GHz Macbook, 2 GB RAM, 250 GB HD
Reply
post #74 of 95
The article claims: "...[Apple] has declined to comment on whether it has been working behind the scenes to transition the technology into its own virtualization solution."

Wrong. Phil Shiller said this to an analyst:

Absolutely not, the R&D would be prohibitive and were not going to do it. Our solution is dual boot.

http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07...smac/index.php
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/...09120049.shtml

Now, they may have something in the works regardless of what they say in public, but to claim they've 'declined to comment' is JPW*.


*Just Plain Wrong
post #75 of 95
[QUOTE=Neruda]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nascarnate326

But with 10.4 almost equaling vista, why would someone pay $300 when 10.5 is better and already installed? /QUOTE]

Say what? Wow, this comment has completely slipped under the proverbial radar. You would normally be run off these boards for making a comment like this, yet there has been nothing...

Uh ... Ok. But he was right, wasn't he ? ...
post #76 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by zunx

Listen M$: you have NO right! I will never ever purchase any M$ product again. Ever!

Yeah! nor me!

... Ill keep using one or two though
post #77 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by sandau

oh everyone of you that bash M$ crack me up completely. Waaaah, Have to pay to virtualize the OS.

Ok, now go run OS X in a virtual machine...oh wait, YOU CAN'T! Not at ALL. Its against the terms of the software agreement.

I'd prefer to PAY for an option compared to NOT HAVE IT AT ALL.

GO bash Jobs over this one. I'd love to have a virtual OS X set up to develop on. The bad guy here is APPLE, not M$. At least you CAN. It might COST you, but YOU bloody CAN do it.

Ever since Apple was conceived, the whole point was to develop the OS specifically for the hardware. That is what Apple do and have done for ever. If OSX ran in any way (certainly legally) on Joe Shlong's PC then Apple would lose a huge aspect of what makes them unique. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always claimed that their OS is for any computer - that is what differentiates Apple from Microsoft.

So you see, Apple is not being evil, they are simply doing what they have always done.

What Microsoft are doing is understandable, though somewhat annoying, and a bit lame (like petty oneupsmanship).

At the end of the day, I don't see why most of us should care. We will all find our own solutions and for the few who require legitimate virtualisation then, yes, I guess you'll have to cough up the somewhat overpriced (yet understandable) premium.

For me, boot camp is fine. I have office on my mac (although, come on Steve, you should be able to at least equal it. I mean, Pages...? Sort it out), and will use some form of windows (which will no doubt have to be Vista sooner or later) for a few games and maybe Maya (if AutoDesk abandon it on OSX - which they had better not!).
post #78 of 95
I wonder if this wouldn't be considered anti-competitive behavior...
post #79 of 95
I personally think what MS is doing is great. It will require most users to make a clean break from Windows. Buy a Mac and don't even bother installing Vista. Why pay 200 more for an inferior OS with inferior apps. Sure, there are apps on Windows that don't exist on OS X...the same can be said about OS X.

I hope MS continues to restrict and remove support for apps on the Mac.
post #80 of 95
Doesn't the wording of the licencing for Vista mean that with Vista Home one may not run the same licence in virtual machine? So that to run a virtualisation of Vista Home requires two licenced products while if one had Vista Premium one could run a virtualised version of Vista using the product licence (i.e.: one would not be required to buy another licence? It would seem to be the intent behind the wording.
In effect, if one bought/had an unused Vista Home licence one could install that as a VM on an Apple Computer computer. One should hope so, anyhow.

"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. So device=the hardware computer (the product key licenced to the physical mahine) may not be used again in a virtual environment -unless one have Premium Biz edition.
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