“After years of delays and billions in development and marketing efforts, it would seem that Microsoft Corp. would want anyone who possibly can to buy its new Windows Vista operating system. Yet Microsoft is making it hard for Mac owners and other potentially influential customers to adopt the software,” Brian Bergstein reports for The Associated Press. “Microsoft says the blockade is necessary for security reasons, but some dispute that claim.”
Bergstein reports, “now that Macintosh computers from Apple Inc. use Intel Corp. chips, just like Windows-based PCs, virtualization programs let Mac users easily switch back and forth between Apple’s Mac OS X operating system and Windows. That could appeal to Mac enthusiasts who want access to programs that work only on Windows, including some games.”
“However, Vista buyers have to agree to its licensing rules — a legally binding document. Lurking in that 14-page agreement is a ban on using the least expensive versions of Vista — the $199 Home Basic edition and the $239 Home Premium edition — in virtualization engines,” Bergstein reports. “Instead, people wanting to put Vista in a virtualized program have to buy the $299 Business version or the $399 Ultimate package.”
Bergstein reports, “The less expensive versions of Vista actually would work in virtualization programs. But Microsoft wants to restrict it because of new security holes spawned by the technology, according to Scott Woodgate, a director in Microsoft’s Vista team.”
Bergstein reports, “even though Microsoft will let virtualization products run the higher-priced versions of Vista, some powerful features in those editions are forbidden in virtualization. The license agreement prohibits virtualization programs from using Vista’s BitLocker data-encryption service or from playing music, video or other content wrapped in Microsoft’s copyright-protection technology. Microsoft says virtualization’s security holes make those features dangerous.”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This seems to be a story all over again thanks to The Associated Press. Again, this sounds more like something the desperate OS-limited HPs, Dells, Lenovos, Toshibas, Gateways, etc. of the world would ask Microsoft to implement because they know that only Apple Macs can run Mac OS X, Linux, and/or WIndows. Why buy an OS-limited PC with access to a smaller software library when you can get a Mac that does it all? Note also that, if you don’t want to just ignore Microsoft’s license terms, Apple’s Boot Camp is not virtualization and is therefore not covered under Microsoft’s license agreement, so you could run any of the cheaper Vista versions on your Mac via Boot Camp.
Related articles:
Computerworld: Apple Macs are the most flexible, compatible computers on the planet – February 20, 2007
Microsoft’s Windows Vista Home license forbids virtualization – February 02, 2007
Apple Macs can run more software than Windows PCs – October 30, 2006
Microsoft license terms limit Vista virtualization to Vista Ultimate or Business versions – October 18, 2006
Apple Mac’s 2007 market share climb will dumbfound almost everyone, create mayhem in PC market – September 08, 2006
$399 for Windows Vista Ultimate?! (Hint: Get a Mac) – August 29, 2006
Dude, you got a Dell? What are you, stupid? Only Apple Macs run both Mac OS X and Windows! – April 05, 2006
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Why buy a Dell when Apple’s Intel-based computers will run both Mac OS X and Windows? – June 08, 2005
Intel-based Macs running both Mac OS X and Windows will be good for Apple – June 10, 2005
Windows users who try Apple’s Mac OS X Tiger might not want to go back – June 07, 2005
Microsoft and Dell must have a lot of bricks lying around today – June 07, 2005
Apple’s Schiller: No virtualization in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard, ‘our solution is dual boot’ – July 10, 2006
Yeah M$ is defending its turf. Wait until they realize the Zune is dead and they try to resurrect it. Look for iTunes blocking patches to be released to Vista users.
They will claim it is a security patch and block the iTunes port. Of course blocking iTunes will be a “mistake” that can ony be corrected by navigating through 200 firewall confugration “wizards”.
These are the kind of tricks M$ starts to play when they feel the heat. Kudos to Jobs and Parallels!
Just my $0.02
Oink! Me thinks the folks at MS are also members of the porcine family.
“Microsoft says virtualization’s security holes make those features dangerous.”
Holy Cow! MicroCrap is now worried about securtiy?
I just saw a flying pig!
Well who’d want a cheaper version on there Mac anyway. We Mac users expect nothing but the best from Microsoft.
Who reads licence agreements?
The only reason(s) why you would need XP or Vista on your Mac is either:
1) Your job has these annoying PC-only programs that they force you to use, or
2) You’re a PC gamer.
All other efforts can be accomplished via OSX in a more productive, safe, and reliable manner.
. . . that Apple won’t allow virtualization of its OS, either, otherwise it would run on Windows boxes. If you condemn Micropork for doing it, you’d have to condemn Apple, too.
Don’t get me wrong I am not a big MS fan, BUT at least they allow virtualization. Apple forbids it on all versions of OSX, and nobody critiquing them. And, yes there are valid reasons to run virtual OSX machines.
Holy Cow! MicroCrap is now worried about securtiy?
Worried, yet the best they can do is a few whiney lines of legal babble.
What happened to old-fashioned security, the kind you had to implement?
As for licensing hassles, fsck MS. If you really need to virtualize Vista and want to be clean, wait until the high-end versions are selling for peanuts on eBay.
You are being ripped off by Microsoft. Cancel or allow?
(sigh) Allow.
1. Is Microsoft’s business plan is to limit sales of Vista or is Microsoft stating that the “Home” editions of Vista are inherently less secure as other versions?
2. If we believe Microsoft concern for its customers, how are the “Home” editions of Vista inherently less secure than other versions?
3. Do the security risks in “Home” editions also apply to PC owners running Vista natively?
4. Why doesn’t Microsoft include a disclaimer with each “Home” edition of Vista that absolves Microsoft of any security problems with running the “Home” edition in virtualization?
5. How can Microsoft effectively prohibit someone from running any version of Vista in virtualization except by user acquiescence?
6. How does virtualization of Vista or any other operating system introduce an extra measure of risk?
The lower versions of Vista are less processor intensive and therefore would run faster under virtualization?
M$ likes Windows and Office running on a Mac, but they want it crippled in some way as to lure you to the dark side.
Direct X for one.
MS and virtualization:
You CAN’T run cheaper versions of Vista?
You’re not SUPPOSED to run them?
There IS a difference.
And I’ll bet the $10 copies of XP and Office I procured in Bulgaria for a friend…
wink wink nudge nudge
Dave,
Hey, I’m a flying pig.
Someone said,
” . . that Apple won’t allow virtualization of its OS, either, otherwise it would run on Windows boxes. If you condemn Micropork for doing it, you’d have to condemn Apple, too.”
Not really. Apple is doing it because they are primarily a hardware company, and their objective is to sell hardware. Allowing their OS to run on other hardware would be very detrimental to their core business.
On the other hand, MS sells operating systems, so their core business is to get their OS running on as many systems as they can. What they are doing here is limiting their OS to only the more expensive versions simply because they think they can make more money that way. I don’t buy their “virtualization’s security holes make those features dangerous” for a New York minute.
The most basic version of Vista doesn’t have transparent windows and some of the other candy. Virtualizing it would allow easy, direct comparison to OS X, and it would make Vista look very lame. Once they decided on limiting virtualization, they kicked it all the way up to the highest versions because…simply…the greedy fellas couldn’t resist!
I imagine the meeting where they decided to make so many versions….
A: So just the patty, a slice of pickle and ketchup for the Basic Home Edition?<i>
B: A thin patty at that!
A: <i> Oh, okay, we’re segmenting patties too then. Two kinds?
B: Well, we’ve got to build differentiation between the levels.
A: All right, a thin patty and let’s lose the sesame seeds on the buns for the Home Editions.
B: Excellent idea! Show of hands… … … passed!
A: For the Home Premium Edition, we’ll need a, uh…vegetable or salad-something.
C: Onion?
B: Get outta here! That’s too rich!
A: Lettuce then with no tomato.
B: And no dressing.
C: That’s way too cheap!
A: Lettuce, a thin slice of tomato, sprinkling of vinaigrette and no mayo’ nor sesame seeds on the buns.
B: Someone price that.
C: It’s the minimum for a “Premium.”
A: Moving on, then…. Basic Business?
B & C [simultaneously]: CHEESE!
MW: “designed.”
@ Don’t Forget…
Right you are!
What’s the definition of “A New York Minute”?
The time it takes for the traffic light to turn green and the first driver honks.
Sorry M$, but I don’t need Vista from you at all anyway. I have a full version of XP Pro from 5 years ago that I can use just fine with either Boot Camp or Parallels. For the 5% of the time that my Mac is ever running Windows, I sure don’t need a high dollar version of Vista because I’d never get my money’s worth out of it due to lack of use. My next OS purchase will be OS X Leopard, since OS X is what I’m running 95% of the time anyway.
What concerns me about M$ Vi$ta is what is under the hood. It’s hard to believe it took them six years just for the pretty GUI lipstick on the pig. What chicanery lurks underneath that pretty copycat GUI? DRM for sure. What other stuff only a total geek could understand is in there that burdons their users only to preserve their monopoly? The bad news continues to trickle out. Certainly their customers rank some several notches below their #1 objective, MONEY!
Wingsy said, “Not really. Apple is doing it because they are primarily a hardware company, and their objective is to sell hardware. Allowing their OS to run on other hardware would be very detrimental to their core business.
On the other hand, MS sells operating systems, so their core business is to get their OS running on as many systems as they can. What they are doing here is limiting their OS to only the more expensive versions simply because they think they can make more money that way. I don’t buy their “virtualization’s security holes make those features dangerous” for a New York minute.”
This was talking about Apple forbidding running OS X on any non-Apple computer. Well, gee, that’s a warm fuzzy feeling… Apple is not doing it for a (good?) reason because they want to force you to run OS X on Apple hardware only (in their license) but Microsoft is only trying to make more money because they want you to run it only if you pony up for the expensive editions (so $100 – $200 more for the more expensive editions of Vista is asking for more money than you’d pay for Apple Hardware (at least $500-$600 for the cheapest Mac)?).
Remember also that if Microsoft outright forbid their operating system from running on anything but Dell, HP, Gateway, or Lenovo hardware (as Apple does by only allowing OS X to run on Apple hardware) they would have the antitrust folks back in Redmond so quickly they wouldn’t know that they ever left (did they, by the way?)!
Why is the “MacDailyNews Take”‘s always so caddy?
“Why buy an OS-limited PC with access to a smaller software library when you can get a Mac that does it all?”
LOL
Sounds like the stuff that class-action lawsuits are made of. Creation of a producer imposed licensing requirement that “induces” customers to buy a particular, high costing product (with features that may not be desired) over similar, lower costing products. This practice limits consumer choices and leads to anti-competition. I thought this was the type of behavior that got MS in trouble with the EU and US Attorneys General.
So, you have to buy the premium editions to use virtualization, but you can’t use the premium features under virtualization. It’s almost like MS wants people to switch to the mac.
“Remember also that if Microsoft outright forbid their operating system from running on anything but Dell, HP, Gateway, or Lenovo hardware (as Apple does by only allowing OS X to run on Apple hardware) they would have the antitrust folks back in Redmond so quickly they wouldn’t know that they ever left (did they, by the way?)!”
I love it when people have no idea what they’re talking about. But hey, whatever makes you FEEL smarter works I guess.
“least expensive versions of Vista — the $199”
Truely Einstein, man’s stupidity know no limits.
Microsoft is rotting from the top down.
MS can barely get PC users to pay for Windows. It’s going to make Mac users do it? Good luck.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
Cpt. Obvious said, “I love it when people have no idea what they’re talking about. But hey, whatever makes you FEEL smarter works I guess.”
Captain Obvious, please explain what you’re talking about? Does it make me FEEL smarter to question when we continue to hear comments that the Mac can run more software than a PC over and over again? Nope. I just think the comments we hear spouted over and over again about being able to run more software on OS X (by running Windows and other OS’s virtualized) are not true.
You can run OS X just fine on any generic hardware ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=run+os+x+on+a+pc&btnG=Google+Search ) just like you can run any edition of Vista on a Mac (it is technically possible in both cases and plenty of people do it). Parallels says about virtualization of OS X to run on non-Apple hardware: “We won’t enable this kind of functionality until Apple gives their blessing…”. You can also run Vista virtualized though I only run XP virtualized in Paralells so I don’t know the extent of any technical limitations they put on the OS itself if it thinks it’s running virtualized. Each OS will work fine if booted into normally (run Vista with Boot Camp and OS X natively on a PC).
The only thing that prevents this is the licensing for each operating system. You are only allowed to run OS X on an Apple brand computer. From the Mac OS X “Tiger” license:
“2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.<b>
A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single <b><u>Apple-labeled computer</u> at a time.”
– (emphasis on “Apple-labeled computer” mine) Source: Apple Mac OS X “Tiger” license:http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.pdf
Don’t get me wrong, the Vista license is a load of BS… not arguing that, I’m just saying that both Apple and Microsoft are shady in this regard of the operating system licensing (MS is shady in many, many other ways as well which no one except them will dispute)
So… you can run the same software on both pieces of hardware. So, why do we keep hearing from people that you can run more software on a Mac when you could run the exact same set of software on a PC that is running OS X?
“It’s hard to believe it took them six years just for the pretty GUI lipstick on the pig.”
I don’t find it that hard to believe. There was a blog written by a former MS employee who explained why it took so long. He was working on one drop-down menu….for a year. He told of how they would have meeting after meeting about his one menu. Then discover that another group was doing their drop-down differently and the process would start over.
This is a non-issue since most, or all, torrents will be of the Ultimate Edition anyway, heh.
MW: green
Running Vista Ultimate from Microsuck already and I didn’t pay anything….Thanks to warez world.
Just one more reason NOT to buy MS’s Vista in any for or fashion!
Though for the life of me I can’t understand why anyone would want to buy a single OS based computer when you can buy a Mac and have a twofer + !
Point of order – of late more and more Windows changed folks are asking me about Mac and what it take to switch!
Have a good one…
Rick in Houston
Unless the cheaper versions of Vista can detect they are running in a virtual machine, how exactly is this silly rule going to be enforced?
The posts on this site show a very strong Conservative/Libertarian streak, so the fact that a company wants to extract the most for it’s OS for installation on hardware competitive with their OEMs shouldn’t surprise you. As so may say about so many things, you can always choose not to buy it.
The reality of the situation is:
1. Most people will ignore the MS licensing agreement and run Vista in a window if they need to.
2. Most people won’t need or want to.
3. Vista is already tanking in the market. User acceptance will be low, problems will be huge, and no application vendor is going to release a Vista-only application and survive.
4. … which means Mac users will just run XP in a window if they have to run Windows
5. The switch to Mac will accelerate as the Vista issues increase, and MS share price falls.
6. As long as new users can run XP via boot camp or in a VM, they will be able to make the switch.
7. By the time that MS solve Vista’s problems, Mac marketshare will be so high that application vendors will all be developing Mac-specific versions of their software.
8. And by this time new software developed ONLY FOR MAC will be in abundance.
9. And then the issue for Microsoft, HP, Dell and others will be how to run OS/X in a Window to persuade those who would buy Apple to look at their products.
10. Within 12 months the major vendors will release their own operating systems to compete with Windows. SUN may be first, IBM will be next, HP close on their heels. These organisations have the software expertise to do this, and the first implementations will be for businesses who require simple MS Office functionality for their users (which is probably most corporate users).
Microsoft will be broken up inside 2 years and the market will fragment.
Microsoft doesn’t want users to virtualize the cheaper versions of Vista, or Microsoft prevents users
from doing this? Which is it? Who gives a rat’s ass what Microsoft wants unless they’re able to enforce
their wishes?
“The time it takes for the traffic light to turn green and the first driver honks.”
In New Your those events are reversed, the first driver honks about the time the opposing light goes amber, well before your light ever goes green.
The only reason to run windows on your mac is for compatibility with legacy applications, and XP is the obvious choice for that requirement.
MS is shooting themselves in the foot here.
-jcr
I’m saving my Vista money for an iPhone.
“Again, this sounds more like something the desperate OS-limited HPs, Dells, Lenovos, Toshibas, Gateways, etc. of the world would ask Microsoft to implement because they know that only Apple Macs can run Mac OS X, Linux, and/or WIndows. Why buy an OS-limited PC with access to a smaller software library when you can get a Mac that does it all?”
Wow, you Mac guys really think you’re something, huh? OS-limited? More like, they can run every OS except Mac, and do it at 1/2 the cost. Anyone who spends their paychecks to Apple for an over-price piece of hardware that you *could* buy off the Apple market for 1/2 the cost is poor consumerism at best. And limited? How about Mac’s limited software library? Yes, Mac (I hope I don’t make anyone faint here!) does have a vastly *smaller* library and though you all tout how powerful and superior they are, have nothing to show for it. All the best games are PC based, but sadly, not Mac. And games are what really shows the power behind a CPU. It amazes me how evil Apple fans think Microsoft is, but oh how it was a different story before the rise of the PC when Apple actually had some market share…
Micronix,
I don’t think any Mac apologist (of which I am one) denies that PCs are for gamers. However, can a Windows PC run Final Cut Pro Studio? If not then it is not ready for prime time since FCP is the industry standard video editing package. Can it run Logic Pro? If not then again, it is not ready for prime time. Can it run Shake? If not, then once again the PC turns out to be the toy.
Practically speaking, Macs currently run the largest library of apps. Impractically speaking I can run every app known to man on an Amiga. However, it might take a few modifications
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
The last line says it all:
“Rudolph believes many users will be so confused that they avoid Vista altogether.“
What a great way to end an article!
Emphasis added (or was attempted to be added) by me.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Peace.
Beeblebrox,
Sure the Mac is superior in editing video and still graphics work, but like the Mac itself, this is a very small minority of uses of a computer to the population.
MicroNix,
The plain fact of the matter is that the Mac is superior for EVERYTHING except gaming. Not being a kid, I am not interested in buying a computer for gaming. However, I am glad there is a platform for kids to play games as this is a great place for them to waste their time rather than doing something constructive. But I digress.
A limited reach, does not an inferior product make. To use the tried and true vehicle analogy, which is better, the GM product or the (insert your favorite import car manufacturer name here) product?
@Micronix
1. Your sums are wrong. A Vista-capable machine, with full Vista, will be more expensive that the equivalent Mac.
2. The Mac can run every O/S a PC can, plus OS/X
Generally an unhelpful post. Time to go to an Apple store and see why we are so smug
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
Speaking for myself, the main reason why I run any version of Windows under Parallels is not so I can kick Windows around and get under the hood, but so I can run some Windows only app that I need for a client and for which an OSX equivalent is for whatever reason not suitable.
That being the case it then follows that I do not need Vista under Parallels at all. The reason is that to my knowledge there are no Vista only applications – so my XP license which does permit legal virtualization installation is more than adequate.
You then need to consider that the majority of medium to large corporates will not even consider Vista for at least 1 to 2 years and maybe longer (based on past adoption of latest Windows versions) and that many of these are actively investigating Open Source solutions to regular business applications then I think we will see many choosing to go with non-Windows alternatives rather than upgrade to Vista.
Consider also that Bill Gates business genius (give him crredit where its due) is from an impeccable sense of corporate timing and now he chooses to leave Microsoft and devote his time to other things. He knows that Microsoft dominance is all but over and in my opinion will see it reduced to an also ran once great company within a few years. His current outbursts IMO relate to the simple fact that he does not want to see it happen on his watch.
BTW, if I need Vista so that I can get under the hood and really learn and do stuff with it as an OS then Virtualisation is not suitable anyway. That is why I keep a high spec brand X machine around as well as a Dell PowerEdge Server. However now that the last major package I needed on Windows is now available for OSX I think I will eBay these last couple of non Apple machines as redundant.
My current client is switching their entire 1,200 plus network over entirely to Mac as part of a scheduled technology refresh and because they have identified (without any input from me – I merely confirmed their suspicions) that it will result in a lower ROI and TCO than the alternatives. As a result they anticipate a direct contribution to the bottom line (and consequently share value) of almost 1% which in today’s competitive market counts for a lot.
As a free lance consultant with more than 27 years experience in most technologies I have lived through most of the major trends and technology changes that are modern computing. Now is an exciting time as we see one of the major shifts ever seen. Q4 06 net profit from Microsoft is only about 4 times larger than Q4 net profit from Apple yet Microsoft is about 9-10 times bigger in capitalization. Clearly Apple is the better investment and all the rest of the posturing from Stock pundits and so called Technology watchers really does not reflect reality.
For Microsoft execs, I guess their Windows open on a Vista of desperate loneliness.
Cheers
Fenman, the only part of your post I disagree with is the 1-2 year part…. at least as far as my employer goes. The only XP installations that we have are on some very new computers. Vista is specifically disallowed at this time. My computer itself has an XP sticker on it, but it runs W2k. It ran NT before the company decided that NT was no longer supportable. I got “upgraded” to W2k just 2 years ago….
BTW, except for some eye candy I don’t notice any fundimental difference in user experience between NT, W2k and XP. I don’t observe any truely new features. Haven’t even seen Vista yet.
– gws
gws,
you will note I said ‘at least’ 1 to 2 years. Certainly for amny corporates they will only changed when forced to either by M$ changing the support contract rules or when some strategic piece of new software requires a later version. I still have some clients running on NT let alone W2K or XP.
Cheers
Windows Vista for gamers? Actually, gamers are worried that Vista’s CPU hogging will make ruin their experience… last I heard.
BTW, Jareth The Goblin King… I’d love to have that for a good read. Got a link for us?
What I find interesting is the more expensive versions’ restrictions on using DRM and BitLocker under virtualization. What will Microsoft do when they finally release Longhorn? It is supposed to have all of this new Virtualization technology built-in. And they are already touting it as being able to run a whole lab’s worth of computers on one server, virtualized, with each student Remote Desktop’ing into a separate VM. Would they also be restricted by the same EULA? Or would each student be running something other than Vister in the VM?
I bet you’ll have to download an “app” for your updates to check wether you’re running on a VM and when your computer is low-end you’ll get an error stating: “Our spyware detected you’re running Vista on a virtual machine, please buy a copy of Vista that won’t run on your computer, or face our new 3D-BSOD…”
Or, as a popular commercial in Belgium would say it: “Microcrap, yet another reason to play (on the) lottery…”.
Who cares? I switched 18 monthes ago. I feel no need to run window.