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>
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!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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>
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!!
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.
By definition, an operating system has complete control of the low-level hardware.
Yup.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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??
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.
Exception: gamers
Exception number 2: product designers (Autodesk Inventor).
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.
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.