If you want to run Microsoft’s Windows Vista in a virtual environment, via a product like Parallels Desktop for Mac, “things can get sticky,” Benjamin Rudolph blogs for Parallels.
Rudolph explains, “Microsoft has released a new EULA (End User License Agreement) that states that only certain versions of Vista – Business and Ultimate (and Enterprise for corporate customers) are eligible to be run in a virtual machine. The EULA says that Home Basic and Home Premium CANNOT be run in a virtual machine.”
Here’s the tecnical legalese from the EULAs:
For Vista Home Basic and Home Premium Editions:
“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
For Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions:
“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. 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. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.”
“In short, this means that if you’re a user and you want to run Vista virtually, you MUST buy the highest end versions of Vista, or you’ll be in violation of the Microsoft EULA,” Rudolph explains.
Full article here.
“That doesn’t preclude Vista Home editions from being installed on Macs running Boot Camp, however, since Boot Camp isn’t a virtualization or emulation technology — instead, it makes Windows run natively on the Mac,” Peter Cohen reports for Macworld. “For now, however, Boot Camp is still in beta development, and still officially works only with Windows XP.”
Cohen reports, “The issue for users is price: Microsoft sells its Home editions of Vista for $199 or $239, while Business and Ultimate editions cost $299 and $399 respectively.”
Full article here.
Related articles:
Microsoft’s Windows Vista: Five years for a chrome-plated turd – January 30, 2007
Microsoft license terms limit Vista virtualization to Vista Ultimate or Business versions – October 18, 2006
And this is a surprise…why?
God, it drives me nuts that MS releases multiple versions of their OS. For pete’s sake, just release 1 version for desktops, and 1 for servers. It’s easier on MS coders, easier on third-party developers, and easier on consumers.
Well, for me it’s all moot, because I’ll never be purchasing any MS product for as long as I live. But, theoretically speaking, if I did, I’d use that product in whatever way I damn well pleased to. If I paid for it, they made their money and it’s no one’s business but my own if I want to run it under virtualization. To hell with their EULA, and to hell with them while I’m at it.
BOOT CAMP is not virtualization. It runs Windows natively! So, it’s cool.
Probably, you cannot run Windows Vista with Parallels.
How much aggravation do you want today?
Windows, the best aggravation money can buy.
Dirty pool v10.2
Firstly, it doesn’t seem legal to forbid a person from running any OS in virtualization.
Secondly, it doesn’t seem that Microsoft could enforce this.
Thirdly, how long will it take for some hacker to make this restriction null and void?
Fourthly, how long before the lawsuits start?
Fifthly, how long before Microsoft is forced to capitulate?
Microsoft: If you can’t beat ‘em with innovation, circle the wagons, and call your lawyers.
The real reason is that Gates needed new carpet for his home.
Also note for the Business, Enterprise and Ultimate versions:
It says you are not allowed to use any Microsoft DRM’d content in your virtualized Vista, nor can you use Bitlocker or full-drive encryption.
What is their deal???
MW: they’ve “lost” it
So, Microsoft is perfectly willing not to sell any copy of Vita that would be run in virtualization. I thought Microsoft was in the business of making money, not limiting their revenue stream.Maybe, Microsoft feels beholden to the PC manufacturers. I hope that all Microsoft shareholders understand that Microsoft is a subsidiary of Dell, HP, Toshiba, Sony, et al. Suckers.
We all know that Microsoft feels that EULAs should be followed to the T. Same with pirating software, or installing it on more than one machine at a time.
…that’s why they were all sharing the OS X install CD, right?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
OK. It appears they’re only recommending you not use full-drive encryption in the Vista virtual machine. But they are definitely saying you can NOT access any Microsoft DRM’d content.
And what isn’t well known yet is that Vista DISABLES hardware IT deems to be “insecure” (read “unauthorized”) whenever “premium content” is present. Another little surprise, any video better than 600 x 800 is automatically degraded (made fuzzier) purposely by Vista, presumably to prevent capture and recording. It’s the same with sound files. Vista is a DRM trojan horse. Wait til this information gets onto the mainstream media.
Hairbo
You question has a lot of merit. Welcome to the MDN / Gates circus
We the masochist of the MDN cult, ride the emotional rollacoaster anytime MDN posts something preposterous. Jut look at the previous post, Gates is doing the usual politician trick on the media by inventing facts; MDN does the Dvorak trick on the Mac community by feeding it to us while writing inflammatory headlines to watch us all get excited as we start beating our chest in anger. Pathetic
references please
You can’t use Parallels to run Vista Home Editions? So what? Their name escapes me at the moment (Codeweaver?), but they have developed a Windows emulation program that doesn’t require a copy of Windows. I’ve seen their betas, and they are fast.
Seems like this could be construed as anticompetitive behavior by MS, trying to prevent direct side-by-side competition with their OS by disallowing virtualization.
But then, reading the second EULA, it sounds like it might also be about DRM. Microsoft is scared that the virtualized hardware is going to hijack their precious “premium content” that the OS tries so desperately to protect. See http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
It sure seems like they want the option of SWITCHING to a Mac less of a possibility for those on the fence.
As a non-Parallels or Bootcamp user, I thought the whole point of virtualization was to run Windows apps, not Windows itself.
Meaning this news would appear to be irrelevant. So what am I missing?
If Apple makes a technology available in Leopard (or some yet to be named big cat) that allows people to run Windows apps in MacOSX without Windows, then this kind of restricitve crap isn’t going to mean squat.
Do it Apple. Nuke them!
And how is this any different than Apple’s EULA?
“The wow starts now.” Yeah, the wow of watching a incapacitated behemoth as Microsoft sink into the tar sands of its stupidity. Yup, I never thought I would live to see the days of the demise of Microsoft, now I have the hopes of watching it slowly happen.
“The woe starts now.” seems more appropriate.
Here are some quotes from a very interesting paper (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html) about Vista’s “Premium Content Protection” scheme. The full paper is a must read, though it gets very technical in places. This time it appears that Microsoft’s arrogance and inflated view of itself may have led it to fatally overreach its capabilities. Vista’s “Premium Content Protection” scheme may be the longest suicide note in history.
Quote:
“As late as August of 2006, when Sony announced its Blu-Ray drive for PCs, it had to face the embarrassing fact that its Blu-Ray drive couldn’t actually play Blu-Ray disks in HD format:
“Since there are currently no PCs for sale offering graphics chips that support HDCP, this isn’t yet possible”.
In fact so far no-one has been able to identify any Windows system that will actually play HD content in HD quality, in all cases any attempt to do this produced either no output or a message that it was blocked by content protection. While it’s not possible to prove a negative in this manner, it’s certainly an indication that potential buyers may be in for a shock when they try and play premium content on their shiny new Vista PC.
The same issue that affects graphics cards also goes for high-resolution LCD monitors. One of the big news items at CES 2007 was Samsung’s 1920×1200 HD-capable 27″ LCD monitor, the Syncmaster 275T, released at a time when everyone else was still shipping 24″ or 25″ monitors as their high-end product [Note F]. The only problem with this amazing HD monitor is that Vista won’t display HD content on it because it doesn’t consider any of its many input connectors (DVI-D, 15-pin D-Sub, S- Video, and component video) secure enough. So you can do almost anything with this HD monitor except view HD content on it.
Further, Vista is designed to purposely degrade “premium content”, presumably to prevent it from being captured and reproduced:
Quote:
“Alongside the all-or-nothing approach of disabling output, Vista requires that any interface that provides high-quality output degrade the signal quality that passes through it if premium content is present. This is done through a “constrictor” that downgrades the signal to a much lower-quality one, then up- scales it again back to the original spec, but with a significant loss in quality.
The same deliberate degrading of playback quality applies to audio, with the audio being downgraded to sound (from the spec) “fuzzy with less detail” [Note G].
Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it’ll be left to graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on (deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches.
The Microsoft specs say that only display devices with more than 520K pixels will have their images degraded (there’s even a special status code for this, STATUS_GRAPHICS_OPM_RESOLUTION_TOO_HIGH), but conveniently omit to mention that this resolution, roughly 800×600, covers pretty much every output device that will ever be used with Vista. The abolute minimum requirement for Vista Basic are listed as 800×600 resolution [but] the minimum resolution supported by a standard LCD panel is 1024×768 for a 15″ LCD, and to get 800×600 you’d have to go back to a 10-year-old 14″ CRT monitor or something similar. So in practice the 520K pixel requirement means that everything will fall into the degraded-image category.”
The conclusion to the paper is precious:
Quote:
“As a user, there is simply no escape. Whether you use Windows Vista, Windows XP, Windows 95, Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, Solaris (on x86), or almost any other OS, Windows content protection will make your hardware more expensive, less reliable, more difficult to program for, more difficult to support, more vulnerable to hostile code, and with more compatibility problems. Because Windows dominates the market and device vendors are unlikely to design and manufacture two different versions of their products, non-Windows users will be paying for Windows Vista content-protection measures in products even if they never run Windows on them.
Here’s an offer to Microsoft: If we, the consumers, promise to never, ever, ever buy a single HD-DVD or Blu-Ray disc containing any precious premium content [Note M], will you in exchange withhold this poison from the computer industry? Please?”
@toZeke
There ya go…
first release
extended play
better than bad (good)
deluxe
platinum
business
extreme
ultimate
onyx
plutonium
herbarium
sanitarium
best ever
bestest
more even bestest
Since, Microsoft always cripples the home version of their OS, regardless if its via the software or the EULA, that didn’t interest me so much, but this did…
WHAT?! What? Doesn’t that sound suspiciously like if you play your iTunes via Vista that you might find your files corrupt or permissions changes, or that the playback feature might get set to mute or a whole host of other nightmares. The statement might as well stay that, “We advise you to ONLY use Microsoft DRM; access DRM content OTHER than Microsoft DRM could spell trouble for you computer system.
Who gives a crap what their licensing agreement says. If you want to run Vista in a virtual environment, you can do so, whether they want you to or not. I guarantee this will not be enforceable, as it is anticompetitive nonsense. It’s called civil disobedience. If you don’t believe that it is just than you have the option to ignore it, as long as you accept the possible consequences, which in this case, there will almost certainly not be any.
1. Pay us.
2. Bend over.
3. Take it.
4. Pay us some more.
5. Repeat.
Simple solution: just use XP if you have to have a windows environment on your Mac.
Of course, that slows down vista adoption, but that’s not a problem for anyone but microsoft.
-jcr
An alternartive solution…
…buy CrossOver Mac and run whatever Windoze applications you need without first installing Windows.
<cough>torrent<cough>
MS can suck my hind tit Re: their (unenforceable)”rules”
I saw on the news yesterday that copies of vista go for 3 dollars Canadian in China.
Zeke,
Thanks for the information.
No wonder Bill Gates keeps talking about Parental Controls – he’s trying to mask what his company’s real agenda is.
MS has just shown how much fear they are in over the Mac.
Nothing to do with Vista, but if you run XP on a Mac Pro, you are in violation of our Terms of Use. You are not allowed to run XP on a computer with more than two processors. See you in court.
Microsoft Lawyer…
1) Cores are not the same as processors
2) If that were true, would first-tier Microsoft OEM ‘box-assemblers’ be offering dual Woodcrest systems similar to Apple’s Macintosh Pro running Windows XP?
So the question is who has a home version that they can load into parallels and see if it works fine. What is Microsoft going to do, search your house? How can they defend this in court if you have bought a legal copy of Vista Home. You’re not stealing therefore you are not in violation of any laws. Case closed.
Just read Zeke’s posts. The Vista “full monte” approach to DRM will be a disaster for users and will boomerang against Microsoft. It’s likely to be the most powerful force for switching.
I just installed an OEM version of Vista Home Premium Edition on parallels and it works just fine. So, it’s not as thought you can’t do it, it must just not be supported.
Big woo…big yawn.
So how is MS going to enforce this licensing agreement?
I installed and ran Vista RC1 on a Toshiba laptop and, frankly, was very unimpressed. So they made the UI prettier than any previous version of Windows…as far as I could tell, they didn’t include more than a few new features; AND prettier is not more useable from my test.
Anyhow, even if they cripple the Vista Home install so that it won’t install under Parallels, Parallels includes a utility program to convert a real Windows installation to an image. Users can just install Vista in BootCamp, then convert the installation to an image and run it under Parallels.
Can anyone spell ‘anti-competitive’?
More importantly, can MS lawyers even comprehend the term?
I can see a host of hardware and software manufacturers, consumer groups and perhaps Governments initiating class actions against MS over this.
Could MS be pulling all this crap because the were told that they have to? How is Apple going to deal with the same issues re drm. It would be really funny and maybe not so funny if the drm via Leopard was cracked and suddenly HD content was available through bit torent and playable on any Mac.
MS would be pointing the finger at Steve saying these guys don’t know what they’re doing. Meanwhile the cat will be out of the bag and Mac’s will sell like crazy.
…STATUS_GRAPHICS_OPM_RESOLUTION_TOO_HIGH… <— LOL [Zeke, that was wonderful].
This is why the 1984 commercial is the best ever, it’s as relevant then as now. Microsoft are the borg. The Microsoft fanboys are so totally owned, that they don’t even realize it. This is bad for us because some competition is good for Apple. Comparing Apple to Microsoft – a company with a scandalous low level of morality – is degrading.
More from the document:
The only reason I can imagine why Microsoft would put its programmers, device vendors, third-party developers, and ultimately its customers, through this much pain is because once this copy protection is entrenched, Microsoft will completely own the distribution channel. In the same way that Apple has managed to acquire a monopolistic lock-in on their music distribution channel (an example being the Motorola ROKR fiasco, which was so crippled by restrictions that a Fortune magazine senior editor reviewed it as the STNKER), so Microsoft will totally control the premium-content distribution channel. In fact examples of this Windows content lock-in are already becoming apparent as people move to Vista and find that their legally-purchased content won’t play any more under Vista (the example given in the link is particularly scary because the content actually includes a self-destruct after which it won’t play any more, so not only do you need to re-purchase your content when you switch from XP to Vista, but you also need to re-purchase it periodically when it expires. In addition and since the media rights can’t be backed up, if you experience a disk crash you get another opportunity to re- purchase the content then). It’s obvious why this type of business model makes the pain of pushing content protection onto consumers so worthwhile for Microsoft since it practically constitutes a license to print money.
Welcome to the Social.
Your files. Sorry, killed.
Your rights. You have none.
Your passion. Not allowed.
Your freedom. Hahahaha….
Your money. Sucker!!!
Quote from Less is More:
Welcome to the Social.
Your files. Sorry, killed.
Your rights. You have none.
Your passion. Not allowed.
Your freedom. Hahahaha….
Your money. Sucker!!!
Adam Freeland’s single, We Want Your Soul, has never felt more appropriate than for a situation like this. Lyric style is similar, too…
@Jeff,
This differs from Apple’s EULA because Apple sells both the hardware and software. They derrive value from hardware sales to partially subsidize OS X development. So a restriction on their part is understandable. It is a closed system tied to hardware.
M$ as a convicted monopolist cannot engage in such behavior. Their restrictions are, in the end, to only enforce its DRM that is tied to specific hardware (which they do not make). Whole different ball game.
Try again troll.
Hye guys i have a review for Vista I wrote can I post it here. ta Anthony
Vista is Shit. A Disastor MS share will be less than 10% linux will become default for PCs in 1 year.
MS Bad as expected worse than Expected
I just walked past Dick Smiths shop today 2 hours ago.
I started a Review BUT its such crap i can’t comment.
Apple OSX license prohibits running OSX on anything that isn’t an Apple brand.
That’s even worse than Microsoft’s license. You have the option of doing it in Vista. You don’t have that choice with OSX.
As a Mac user, it’s annoying how hypocritical Apple fan sites are… with readers who follow their lead unawares they’re hypocrites too.
—
It’s okay for me to say this… it was typed on a Mac.
MPC Guy.
Sure, but you also know that no PC brand supports EFI, right? They are all on prehistoric BIOS. They could not even if allowed to.
In addition to this, what the heck are you comparing a software company (Windows) with an hardware&software; company?
You have the option my ass: It brings money to Microsoft if you buy Vista and can install on whatever hw is there.
Apple would bleed money like hell if it allowed OS X to run on non-Apple hw. Finally, Apple is a vertical solution. Allowing OS X to any piece of crap hw out there would reduce considerably the experience of having an OS that is fully tailored to the hw it is supposed to run: no surprises.
As a Mac user you should not even mumbling about that. Nothing to do with being or not honest/sincere.
You must be a very recent switcher if you do not understand this. Or a troll. Your call.
“Apple OSX license prohibits running OSX on anything that isn’t an Apple brand.”
Where does it say that? From the license agreement:
“2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.”
It does not say anything about what brand computer it is running on. And for your information there are programs available for Windows that allow you to run OS X (or OS 9 for that matter).
AppleGuy: It does not say anything about what brand computer it is running on.
You’re absolutely wrong. It says exactly what I said it would say:
“2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time.”
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/MacOSX.htm
With your name being AppleGuy, I’m surprised you didn’t know this already. Shame, shame.
===
>Nonsensical wrote: As a Mac user you should not even mumbling about that.
Nothing personal, but you are a nobody to be telling a person what he/she should say or think. What a ridiculous counter-argument!
The Mac and I decided that I would do the thinking and it would merely be a tool. No more. No less. I drive this bus and not the other way around!
===
>Nonsensical’s nonsense continues: Sure, but you also know that no PC brand supports EFI, right? They are all on prehistoric BIOS. They could not even if allowed to.
What does electronic fuel injection have to do with running OSX on a PC?
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Kidding aside, you should read the news from time to time. OS X has been running on PCs (non-Apple hardware) pretty much since the switch to Intel procs happened.
VMWare and Parallels both note that their emulation environments have been used to install OSX on non-Apple branded computers. Updates are said to make the process even easier.
http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/23/welcome-to-bizarro-world-parallels-and-vmware-running-mac-os-x/
>MadMac wrote: This differs from Apple’s EULA because Apple sells both the hardware and software. They derrive value from hardware sales to partially subsidize OS X development. …Try again troll.
First of all, bad form when you resort to name-calling. It makes you look like an idiot. But since this is MDN, name-calling passes as standard. I’m not calling you an idiot, although you did ruin your argument by lowering yourself to name-calling,.
—
As for your argument that Apple derives value from hardware sales to partially subsidize OS X development, I’d ask for a source.
As a matter of bundling, of course the price of the OS (research and development included) is included in the price of the system.
Even if you could make a case for subsidizing its software development with its hardware sales – which seems ridiculous since the hardware would have no OS if Apple didn’t include one – that cannot account for boxed versions of the OS.
At that point, there is no hardware target for the subsidy to take place.
—
Apple’s EULA is *more* restrictive than Microsoft’s. With Vista you have the option of installing, albeit via the higher-priced version of Vista. With Apple, they don’t want you stuck to their warez…
You bash Microsoft for the very things Apple is doing!
That should’ve read:
With Apple, they want you stuck to their warez…
(small window to type/edit in)
Fark em then, I’ll stick with OSX.
Pardon me for interrupting this debate, but who in their right mind is going to install Vista (any edition) onto a beautiful Mac running OS X?
I’d say save your money, and wait to see what Leopard brings to the table. It’s only February.
Microsoft are pathetic. In the UK, as I write this, Vista Premium Edition (whatever that means, more like ‘non crippled’ edition) is £210.99. Based on up-to-date exchange rates (using my Gadget, oops I mean Widget), that works out at $415.00!!! Since it’s only $227.99 in the US (£115.87), that means a UK resident who wants this DRM lockdown nightmare is going to pay £95.12 extra for the privilege.*
*Prices from amazon.com (US) & amazon.co.uk (UK) 4th Feb 2007.
OS X is £89.99 from amazon.co.uk. ‘Nuff said.
I sense a load of FUD regarding the Vista HD-DVD/Bluray issue here. This is not Microsoft’s decision, not anything unique to Windows – it’s just that MacOS doesn’t yet support either HD-DVD drives or Bluray. The fault lies with the movie companies, who have insisted that HD movie content is protected by HDCP when played at full resolution. As a consequence, if the display device doesn’t support HDCP, the player (whether that is a standalone hardware HD-DVD player, or a combination of computer drive and software player) reverts to standard definition (ie. traditional DVD quality). Blame the movie companies for this one, not Microsoft. It’ll be just the same for MacOS.
The virtualization argument is really fairly straightforward. Apple makes the hardware and the software. They control the whole experience. They are within their rights to say “OS X must run on Mac hardware.” Apple has been doing this since day one, except for the brief period where OS 8.x was licensed.
Microsoft does not make the whole widget. They make only software. For them to require that the software run on a specified hardware platform (not recommend, mind you, but require), is clearly illegal. Follow the money is all I’m going to say on that one.