Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home 369

Posted by Zonk
from the little-bossy dept.
Maxx writes to mention a ZDNet article about Microsoft's dictum on Vista as a virtual machine. The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.' From the article: "'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says Gartner analyst Michael Silver. 'The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 for Windows Vista Business or US$399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of US$200 for Home Basic or US$239 for Home Premium,' Silver suggested."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home

Comments Filter:
  • B.S. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MobyDisk (75490) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:12AM (#16973310) Homepage
    This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.
    • Re:B.S. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by thona (556334) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:15AM (#16973330) Homepage
      ::There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes.

      And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA. I would have to check these conditions, but I would be surprised would that appear there, too.
      • Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:4, Informative)

        by cdn-programmer (468978) <terr AT terralogic DOT net> on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:19AM (#16973392)
        I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.

         
        • Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:5, Interesting)

          by number6x (626555) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:54AM (#16973702)

          So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this.

          What? You don't have a legal department, and you can't afford to hire a law firm for something as trivial as setting up a virtual machine.

          Gee, I guess that means that you won't be able to test the software you are writing against the Vista HOME platform in a cost effective manner. So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.

          Microsoft's rule change will result in either increasing your costs, or decreasing your quality of product. either way they are reducing your ability to effectively compete with them in the free market. They are undercutting competition by manipulating the legal rules, as opposed to using direct head to head competition in the free market. Your product may not even compete directly with any of their existing products, but you still form a potential threat. You may be the next Linus Torvalds or David Heinemeier Hansson.

          Reducing competition helps to protect their monopoly, or so they believe.

          Of course, you may want to contact a lawyer that specializes in Class Action lawsuits. Get them to think of all of the web developers they can represent who are have their product's cost effectiveness reduced by this anti-competitive move from a convicted monopolist who is known to settle lawsuits quickly out of Court. Heck, you could make some law firm rich, and maybe even see a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars in settlement money!

          • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:32AM (#16974066) Homepage Journal
            You need a legal department to setup a VM?

            Strange how I've never needed one of those for any other OS I have created a VM for in the past.
            Which repository do I need to add to get a legal department?
          • Re:B.S. (NOT!!!) (Score:5, Informative)

            by Dion (10186) on Friday November 24, 2006 @11:46AM (#16975468) Homepage
            Happily you don't need a lawyer as the only limitation on what you can do with Vista is Copyright law.

            EULAs are 100% worthless and unenforcable.

            Well at least in Denmark and I suspect much of the EU.

            You see we have a set of restrictions on confusing marketing, you can't sell something and then later try to impose extra limitations on the buyer.

            If MS wants to make the EULA assholery binding then they will have to present the terms BEFORE the sale takes place otherwise we are free to ignore it completely.

            The same is true for language, if the EULA is written in english then it's 100% non-binding.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by arminw (717974)
            .......So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this......

            Is this restriction of home users a legal or a technological one? EULA's are not worth the electrons it takes to display them anyway. IF MS sells any packaged version of VISTA, and I buy a copy, I can legally do with it whatever I want, consistent with COPYRIGHT laws. I can flush it down the toilet, install it on my washer or on a virtual machine.

            If it is a technological restriction, does
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by julesh (229690)
        And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA.

        That's nice for you. Many of us can't afford the £567.49 per annum than an MSDN Operating Systems subscription costs.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by dreamt (14798)
        Not that I don't think that this virtualization limitation is a bunch of bull, but the article does specifically say:

        "Microsoft said developers who obtain Windows Vista Home Basic or Windows Vista Home Premium through their MSDN (Microsoft Developer Network) subscription may use those programs within a virtual machine to assist them in designing, developing, testing and demonstrating their programs."

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by omeg (907329)
      Not just impossible, it should also not be allowed. Perhaps I'll be labelled as old-fashioned for saying this, but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it. It's supposed to be mine, isn't it? (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that; but I still strongly disagree with that.) If I want to virtualize my copy of Vista, I should be able to do so. If the program somehow fails due to Microsoft deliberately making it impossible, then that's sabotage to me. Yet
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Threni (635302)
        > but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it.

        You've bought a license to use a product, not the product itself, apparently. The product is a disk. You can do whatever you like with that until you stick it in a computer, then the license kicks in.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by KokorHekkus (986906)
        Problem is that you have not bought something. You've just paid for the right to use it, with restrictions... you've paid a ticket to ride in Microsofts Funland Park - not bought all or part of it.

        Looking at an Microsoft EULA you'll see the following text:

        3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyrig

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by smilindog2000 (907665)
      Their EULA bans using VMWare to run Windows Vista Home Edition. Come on... this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version, a way to ask for more money, and nothing else. They give away virtualization technology for free, but force you to fork over $400 to use it. By forcing everyone to pay for their OS, and giving away everything else, they force out potential innovators... this time targeting VMWare.
      • Re:B.S. (Score:4, Informative)

        by teslar (706653) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:21AM (#16973420)
        this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version
        You know, I agree with the give-users-a-choice and all those arguments, but how many of your average computer users will know what virtualisation is, let alone need it? This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.
        • I wonder how many /. readers even use home edition? I bought pro (then subsequently started using a work laptop for all my home computing needs and just gave pr0 to my bro). And how exactly is using a VM unsafe? I was under the impression that it was safer in most regards, or at least easier to backup and restore. I did download VMware but never got around to trying it out..
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Fred_A (10934)
            And how exactly is using a VM unsafe?
            Because it's not mature enough, it's in the blurb right at the top of the page! And you certainly don't want to deal with anything underage on a computers nowadays!
            It's about time MS thought of the children I say.

            Either that or it's one of the lamest excuses ever, I'm not completely sure yet.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by thegnu (557446)
          This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.

          This is why I allow my friends to run windows. They ask me, "why do you run linux? it's so hard." And all I can say is that I notice the inherent problems with Windows, and they bother me more that the inherent problems in Linux. That doesn't mean that everyone should use Linux, because as people point out, it's 'hard.'

          Directly relating to what you're sa
      • Re:B.S. (Score:4, Informative)

        by MsGeek (162936) on Friday November 24, 2006 @10:51AM (#16974850) Homepage Journal
        No, this is directed at people running Parallels on Mac OS X. It's unmistakeable. They want to kill Parallels. They also want to kill whatever virtualization solution is being built by Apple for a future Mac OS X.

        Microsoft is feeling the heat from one of their oldest enemies. Leopard is a Vista-killer, and now that a large slice of the Macintosh population is MacIntel they are fearful that MacIntel will poach more customers from their base.
    • Re:B.S. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by neoform (551705) <djneoform@gmail.com> on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:23AM (#16973440) Homepage
      *next week*

      "Microsoft announces iTunes will be disabled on all copies of Vista, because it's a security risk that users doesn't understand."

      (wow, as I wrote that, I got a creepy feeling.. that statement makes me think of all the trash that's come out of whitehouse press releases by Tony Snow)
    • Er? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Wrexs0ul (515885)
      The article's point is that plenty of companies can do this, so long as they spend $60-$100 MORE for a business-class license. Apparently only those capable of spending more money have the cognitive capacities to understand risks involved in VM, and is a kick in the pants to home users who don't buy the same version as their office.

      Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the
      • Re:Er? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Dunbal (464142) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:34AM (#16973530)
        commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!

              Or virtually laid, at any rate...
      • by ray-auch (454705)
        This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.

        Testing on VMs is massively easier than the old days of separate physical test machines with multi-boot, and re-installing / re-imaging to get back to a clean state after each test.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by drsmithy (35869)

          This overlooks that plenty of companies need to _test_ on home edition as that may be (one) target environment.

          For any company that _needs_ virtualisation for that purpose, the additional cost of an appropriate Vista licence is like pissing in the ocean.

  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:12AM (#16973314)
    So where do you want to go today?
    • Anti-Apple...again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mabhatter654 (561290) on Friday November 24, 2006 @10:30AM (#16974650)
      this is specifically to get at Apple user's pockets!!!

      This is so prevent the runaway success that Parallels has become for all the intel mac users. By putting this in the license, and probably with some flimsy second-rate "protection" they make the Parallels be legally forced to play their little game or get a DMCA suit. That's the rub here...Microsoft can FORCE the issue and use police officers if they want. They want customers buying the "upgraded" versions. The worst possible thing that can happen is that developers will make extra sure their products work with Home for all the "Apple" users... and I think Microsoft is trying to put applications into requiring the higher version of windows to even RUN. If all the Apple users make home the default version Microsoft can't continue to shake businesses down.

    • I think you meant to type Microsoft true motto:

      "Where do you think you're going today?"

  • Yes (Score:5, Funny)

    by skingers6894 (816110) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:12AM (#16973316)
    'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'

    Well, neither is Vista probably.....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:16AM (#16973340)
    "...enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista.."

    It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.
  • by cyber1kenobi (666018) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:16AM (#16973346) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft just continues to prove that they don't get it. Virtualization is where it's at - if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302)
      > if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean
      > snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?

      They'd have a lot fewer apps installed on their system too.
  • Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mSparks43 (757109) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:17AM (#16973362) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines
    I dont understand, what risks?
    • by omeg (907329) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:20AM (#16973412)
      The risk of everything turning out okay if you accidentally delete all your files or format your hard drive, perhaps (given that you are able to undo this in some virtualization software). Oh, what about the risk of being able to revert quickly if you get infected by a virus? Those are all terrible risks, and it's imperative that home users don't touch virtualization because of it!
    • Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by GreatBunzinni (642500) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:52AM (#16973682)
      I dont understand, what risks?

      The same risks Microsoft tried to avoid by making it impossible to use WinXP home as a server: the risk of no one buying the "enterprisey" version of their OS and thus not shelving an extra 200$ per seat.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by DrLex (811382)
      I dont understand, what risks?
      Don't you know? You can die a horrible death while running an OS inside a virtual machine! It's like learning to fly a plane in a flight simulator, those things kill people!
    • What risks indeed.. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:05AM (#16973806)
      I dont understand, what risks?


      I note that they said: 'risks'... plural. Now, I won't pretend I know all of the risks Microsoft sees but the paranoid tin-foil-hat part of me would say that one of those risks is that they don't want OS.X and Linux users running Vista in a VM thus circumventing some of Microsoft's barriers, carefully crafted to prevent OS migration. My less paranoid side tells me they are simply trying to weasel out of having to provide tech support for (how many?) millions of users running Vista Home in a VM. If one calls the help center all they have to do is fall back on the old ' Well you see sir it's like this. If you read the EULA that came with your copy of Windows Vista Home edition you will see that....." routine. It will certainly be interesting to see if Vista Home will actually refuse to boot in a VM or whether this is only a cost limiting exercise.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fireboy1919 (257783)
        One actual, real, bonafide concern that comes to mind is the possibility of an exploit in the guest OS allowing it to escalate privileges.

        Of course, you only have to worry about this if the main OS is captured, which is a lot more likely with something that's tied down badly. People in this thread are treating VMware like a possible security solution...what if it isn't ready for that yet?

        Of course, I can't help but think that "Virtual Machines aren't ready" is MS's way of saying, "Our virtual machine produ
    • Re:Understanding (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zaatxe (939368) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:39AM (#16974124)
      I dont understand, what risks?

      The risk of the user circumventing DRM. In a virtual machine, your "sound board" may be sending everything played right to a .wav file, clean of DRM. Same for movies. And Microsoft don't want to give its customers the way to break the law!
    • by Fred_A (10934)
      I dont understand, what risks?
      The risk of making stock holders less happy than you could have.
  • warez it like every other home user who doesn't get it preinstalled with their next PC purchase. If home users actually had to pay for a tenth of the software they use, they'd all be using Linux or some other free software distribution.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by G-Licious! (822746)
      So this is how Microsoft achieves such a low TCO.
    • Well, I thought Windows came preinstalled with almost every new PC sold these days. It's usually hard to find vendors that are willing to sell you an OS-less machine, at least where I live (Iceland).

      Anyway, people do pay quite a lot for the OEM licenses. It's just that most of them don't realize that they are paying for them. For them, Windows comes 'free' with the computer. If people were made more aware of the fact that they're paying a bunch of money for a single, CD-less copy of Windows that can't be u

  • by Threni (635302) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:20AM (#16973406)
    Hehe!

    "So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
    "Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
    "Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
    "Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
    (Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)
  • by QuietLagoon (813062) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:21AM (#16973422)
    Microsoft's stock has been floundering [yahoo.com] for these past few years since Windows 2000 came on the scene. Microsoft needs Vista to jump-start the amount of revenue they take in. Those who want to use virtualization more than likely will not need to features of versions above MS Vista Home, yet Microsoft is forcing those users to spend more than they want to or need to.
    • by dsci (658278)
      Indeed. Another interesting snapshot is Comparison with Red Hat [yahoo.com].

      Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.
  • by Lonewolf666 (259450) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:22AM (#16973428)
    Frokm the linked article:
    A Microsoft spokesperson told ZDNet Asia: "For production machines and everyday usage, virtualization is a fairly new technology and one that we think is not yet mature enough for broad consumer adoption."

    [...]

    Michael Silver, Gartner's research vice president, wrote on the analyst company's blog that like Windows rootkits, there is a risk that VM rootkits can be installed unbeknownst to the consumer.

    "Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM," Silver said.

    I call bullshit on both counts.

    First, technology being immature has never stopped Microsoft before from selling it. And for protecting the consumer, a warning in the EULA would suffice. As in "Microsoft does not guarantee for correct function in a virtual environment". An outright prohibition points to other motives.

    Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.
    • by jrumney (197329)

      Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.

      No, but at least Microsoft will be able to sue the clueless user who became infected, thus persuading them to choose a more robust OS next time around.

  • by (H)elix1 (231155) <slashdot.helix@nOSPaM.gmail.com> on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:28AM (#16973472) Homepage Journal
    Sounds like they are not allowing visualization on the Microsoft VM technology, and not a blanket statement on all VM technology like VMWare. I thought it was a nice touch that the Vista installer would fail under VMWare but worked just dandy on the Microsoft one. VMWare patched this in the 5.5.3 release earlier this month, so for those wanting to run Vista in a VM make sure you grab the latest greatest build. Also sounds like it will work if you have an MSDN subscription verion.

    Foolish, however. In a VM, for demos, etc... I want as few features as possible using up as little RAM as I can. That way the applications I'm running have more resources. I already use Nlite to trim Win2k and Win2003 down substantially. Having something that has the 'ultimate' set of features OOTB is not a good thing. Thank goodness I spend more time on the server side rather than client - what a mess for those testing thick client applications.
  • by Marcion (876801) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:30AM (#16973488) Homepage Journal
    In serfdom, the Lords own the land, so when the serfs get a good harvest, the Lords can up their rent, and when the serfs have a bad harvest, they can turf them out and keep sheep.

    Microsoft seem to be going for a similar strategy, they want Windows always to be the base. Linux as a Virtual Machine on Microsoft is fine, but Microsoft as a virtual machine is not allowed.

    If Windows is the base then they can keep their own products in the picture through bundling, dodgy secret agreements, blackmail and so on.

    If they lose the base, then they actually have to compete as equals, and Microsoft does not do competition .
  • by bealzabobs_youruncle (971430) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:31AM (#16973506)
    I should preface this with the statement that I mostly use OS X and Linux for just about everything, but I usually take an extra box and slap the latest version of Windows on it just to maintain some knowledge for customers. But this might be the first version of Windows (yes, I endured ME) that won't get that treatment...

    -Even more aggressive Windows Genuine Advantage snooping/phoning home. I haven't bothered to pirate your OS yet, if I pass initial activation you can get off my ass. I know my ass is close to m wallet so I see your motives.

    -Exceedingly aggressive DRM built into WMP11. Just a thought, consider the consumer and not your media conglomerate buddies at mega-corp once in a while. You tell me to trust you with my digital life but you won't trust me?

    -You insist that I am too dumb to run my PC; far too many processes are hidden/poorly explained or locked out of my control. Now you tell me I'm not smart enough to handle virtualization?

    I've never been one to believe MS is some kind of innovation power house, but Vista disappoints on almost every level. I've never entirely trusted a Windows OS, but now my OS doesn't trust me. Linux makes a pretty adequate desktop these days and for those who want a totally trouble free experience OS X is still far more consumer friendly than Vista. True that iTunes does present some DRM issues, but they aren't that hard to subvert and the vast majority of files generated on/by OS X and associated applications are widely supported formats. It will be easy to recommend alternatives for the next couple years...

    • -So buy it, or quit whining. WGA is a pain if you've stolen Windows, but otherwise it's more or less transparent.

      -Don't use WMP11/WMA - no-one's forcing you to.

      -No more than any other version of Windows. That's the Windows philosophy; simplicity. If that's not your cup of tea then fine, but you the go on to endorse OSX which takes the same approach as Windows in that the user doesn't need to 'see under the hood' - as long as it works.

      You want a real reason not to upgrade? Try:

      -Windows XP is very stable, and
    • The only thing I truely keep windows around for is gaming, but recently I have been forced to (finally) upgrade to windows XP. A significant number of new games have required XP and a few other bits of software (drivers) that I am forced to use have recently stopped installing/working on older windows systems. Although I could always just avoid these products it is a case of (annoyance to me)+(hatred of new 'features' in this version of windows)-(desire to get that/those game(s)). If that is > 0 then it
  • Security? Bah, humbug! This is "value pricing", pure and simple. In short, they figure that if you can afford the virtualisation software, you can afford to pay the extra on Windows. The popular example of this (in American circles, at least) is "Saturday night stay" [about.com] pricing on airfares, but it may also be familiar to you with regards to ISPs who have a "no servers" rule on domestic broadband. It's not that they can't support servers, really, just that there's usually a difference in ability to pay between
  • hmmmbullshitmm (Score:2, Informative)

    by KayosIII (655272)
    My understanding is that there are only two versions of Windows vista which are allowed to run inside a virtual machine. A special addition for large corperations and the most expensive version available to home users.... Not that this restriction does not apply to using windows as the host OS....

    I believe that the reason for doing this is quite simple... A lot of companies are moving towards virtualisation - Microsoft will make sure that the cheapest option is to use an MS Operating system as the host OS.
  • For my windows home needs I can wait to upgrade the OS at the point where people are throwing away systems with it installed already.
    By that time I'll be able to find fixes for the bugs thru google. And best of all, it won't cost me anything,

    Mostly I use linux but suspect that I really should get past the cups problems by learning how to network machines and use the windows box for a print server. Now there is an idea, network a windows tossed out box for the shortcommings of linux.

    So is there such a hack t
  • by laughingcoyote (762272) <{moc.eticxe} {ta} {lwohtsehgrab}> on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:45AM (#16973624) Journal

    Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.

    "We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."

    Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.

  • One of the things that has really gotten my goat with Vista is remote desktop...

    The only versions (that you can buy) that include remote desktop (also known as terminal services) are Business and Ultimate. So, just for a single feature that I require I have to fork over a significantly larger sum than I did for XP Professional.

    So, if I say wanted some of the features of the normal desktop versions of Vista then i'd have to get Ultimate. For the most part though I think I can do pretty much everything un
  • Translation.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by d3ac0n (715594) on Friday November 24, 2006 @08:51AM (#16973676)
    virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption


    Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."

    Is anyone really surprised? Any market Microsoft cannot dominate they attempt to squash.
    • by drsmithy (35869)

      Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."

      Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.

      This is nothing more than price discrimination. A completely normal - indeed, fundamental - business practice.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by d3ac0n (715594)

        Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.

        Hmm...

        You must have missed the part where I said "home market".

        You see, like many computing trends, virtualization is beginning to make inroads in the home market from the Enterprise market. It started among IT types wanting to run several OSes but not wanting the complication of a dual-boot setup. Apple has greatly helped it along with it's "Parallels" software, and VMWare has a version of it's free VMWare Player for OS

  • What risks? How is running 4 VM's on one big machine more risky than running 4 real machines?
  • If it just against policy, screw them, ill run it in a VM if i want too. I bought it, i can run it on my C64 if i feel like it.
  • Strange figures (Score:3, Interesting)

    by badfish99 (826052) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:00AM (#16973764)
    The figures in TFA are percentages, yet the total in the bottom row is a sum of money. How the hell did that happen?
    And the total for SQL Server 2000 is twice that for SQL Server 2005 on the same version of Windows. Does upgrading a database really make that much difference? How?

    Perhaps there are some clues in the document that you can download from Microsoft. This reveals that 100% of the linux servers were hosting dynamic web sites, but 50% of the Windows servers were hosting static web sites. That must make a big reduction in the Windows support costs. And there were 10 times more Windows servers than Linux servers, so the costs of Linux-trained admins were spread amongst fewer servers, making them seem more expensive per server.

    My guess is that this study was done at a Windows-only shop that had been forced to install a few Linux servers for tasks that were beyong the capabilities of Windows, and was therefore spending a disproportionate amount of money supporting a few specialist Linux boxes.
  • looks familiar (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Andrei D (965217) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:05AM (#16973800)
    Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.
    This just reminds me of the infamous quote:
    This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
    Once again Microsoft's attitude is an insult to its customers intelligence. Thank you Microsoft for letting us know that we are morons.
  • by lpiob (987705) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:10AM (#16973858) Homepage

    Not only virtualisation is restricted:

    • you can move license to another computer only once (even in BOX version). So you'll hava to buy new Vista after second mainboard upgrade
    • there is a limit of 10 computers that can see each other and communicate using Microsoft Windows Neighborhood, even in Vista Pro or Ultimate version.
    • license prohibits making screenshots containing desktop or icons or other artwork incorporated into Vista
    • only Vista Ultimate can be copied on to hard disk
  • Well, of course! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by oneandoneis2 (777721) * on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:12AM (#16973890) Homepage
    Look: If you buy a legitimate copy of Vista, and then install it on virtual hardware, it'll look to the WGA like you've installed it on multiple machines and it should shut you down for piracy. How are they supposed to monitor everything you do with your hardware if they let you use *imaginary* hardware as well?!?

    Be reasonable!
  • Is Microsoft trying to say that if a normal consumer that doesn't appear to understand the risks running a VM will understand the risks after paying $200 for a higher edition of Vista? Does it mean that the more you pay the more you understand the VM technology?
  • Familiar? (Score:3, Informative)

    by styryx (952942) on Friday November 24, 2006 @09:43AM (#16974182)
    FTA: '"So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security," he said.'

    Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!
  • Oh, there is a risk. Don't fool yourself, and don't you dare call MS a liar. There is a huge risk. There's the risk that you might be snooping from the outside of the system and break their precious DRM.

    A VM is by default at the mercy of its host. For the host, the VM is a normal program that can be handled in any way the host deems appropriate. You have full access to its memory, no matter how protected the OS in the VM wants it to be. You have full control over the drivers it loads, you have absolute powe
  • Nonsense... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by urlgrey (798089) * on Friday November 24, 2006 @12:24PM (#16975902) Homepage
    In that same vein, I'd also say most users don't understand the risks involved in email, either. Running Vista in a virtualized environment in the home may be just the thing for parents with young kids to help minimize the risks to their machine when the kids are cruising around online.

    Give 'em a VPC of their own that can't have any data saved to it on reboot, and presto! you've created a way that helps keep the host OS reasonably secure from malware.

    I know a lot of parents that would understand that concept.

    Prohibiting this technology in the name of safety just doesn't make sense.
  • by kinglink (195330) on Friday November 24, 2006 @02:27PM (#16977134)
    Business at usual at Microsoft.

    Oh you need A B and C.... Find the version get the version, 20 gets you one, but that's not good enough, 40 gets you two but no no no. 100 gets you them all but you feel like fool, and choose!

    Of course the prices are more like 100 to get the first. Seriously though Microsoft can become a great company with three steps.

    1. Get rid of all the versions, give 2 versions, one for corporate one for home, both versions are fully unlocked.

    2. Drop the prices, 100 for the home, 200 for the corporate, you're already doing OEM around that price, however by doing this people with XP will buy it rather then sticking around with the old version.

    3. Drop the DRM, drop the litigation, and make sure the customer comes first ALWAYS. ALWAYS, A customer wants to change something and they do it, don't get pissed. If they break your system and do something illegal get pissed, but just because they changed the system so it says "microsoft sucks" How does that hurt you?

    IF you do all three of those things any company can grow and become respected. Of course Microsoft is so caught up in pleasing Hollywood, they are playing the "PS3" game, and we can see what a great machine the PS3 after focusing so much on the nextgen DVD wars. They are an OS, not a home media center, not a Gaming platform, an Operating system, it should be useful as all the stuff, but a focus on one hurts all the rest...

Optimization hinders evolution.

Working...