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?
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.
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?
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."
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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?
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.
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."
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.
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
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?
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.
http://www.winehq.com/
http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/
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.
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.
they are just ASKING for piracy!
Not asking...DEMANDING.
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.
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.
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.