MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

What's more funny is that people will still switch and never install Vista anyway. Double whammy!

They are heavy handed with customers when many people are pretty fed up with them. Interesting strategy-- bite the hand that feeds.

I'll believe that when I see it... Besides, Boot Camp will run Vista fine.

Wrong, MDN.
How long before this is "cracked" will be irrelevant for most users. Average users want a system that is officially supported by the relevant companies, not something they have to kluge together that may be broken the next time M$ releases a patch. Requiring consumers buy the high-end ($$) versions of Vista to use through virtualization will be a serious blow to potential switchers interested in that approach. However, there's no indication that the "Home" edition won't work through Apple's Bootcamp, which is not virtualization, so this could have been a lot worse.
Still, pretty slimey.

Relative to the cost and effort associated with upgrading from XP to Vista, the upgrade path XP --> OSX looks easier, less expensive, and on account of the technical merits of OSX ever more compelling.

No offense to Microsoft, but the Home versions of their OS are typically so crappy, we almost always recommend people run the Pro version anyway; so if I was going to run Vista on my PowerBook, I'd have gone with a Pro version anyway.

Am I correct in saying Bootcamp isn't virtualization?

It's not quite Parallels, but for people that need Vista, and opt for the Home edition, it seems that Bootcamp (or whatever becomes of Bootcamp when Leopard rolls around) will take care of it.

Microsoft accelerates its journey around the bowl...When in doubt, punish the customers some more! Don't these guys get it? If you poop on the people who buy your product long enough, they find someone else that treats them better!

So, install XP for the few thungs you need to get done in Windows. It'll be faster anyway. I don't see this as being an issue. Also, next year, you will be able to buy a legal copy of XP for less than $50. Old OSes are cheap.

What about technologies allowing Mac users to run apps written for Windows, yet while in Leopard, without Vista? This could be just the fire under the ass needed for WINE development, etc. A good thing! If that process became truly seamless most Mac buyers won't bother with the expense of Vista, even if Vista costed $100, nonetheless $300 or $400. Windows developers will love the extra software purchases, and MonopoSoft will have no way to force developers to disallow virtualization at the application level.

OR COULD THEY?

Boot Camp runs Windows native, not virtualized. There is nothing Microsoft could ever do to stop Boot Camp.

Boot Camp offers much higher performance than Parallels and takes full advantage of all of your CPU cores; Parallels only offers a single virtualized core, which takes about two cores to run at speed anyways. Only Boot Camp supports 3D acceleration.

Should be reported to the European Commission.

Microsoft has GAS.

Gall, Avarice and Stupidity!

If they put in restrictions to prevent Vista Home running on bootcamp would put them on dodgy legal ground. Bit of a blow for people wanting to run it via virtualisation and don't have access to the full version.

For occassional Windows use you'll probably be better off sticking with Windows XP as it uses less resources and is faster than Vista. You're not going to run Windows on a Mac for the OS anyway, just a way to access Windows software.

If Microsoft really did this, it would only serve to prevent Parallels users from buying Vista - they'd just keep using XP. That seems like too stupid of an idea even for Microsoft - I call BS.

...because no one *ever* breaks the terms of a software license agreement.

This is a very telling decision. One would think that MS wouldn't care if someone bought a Mac or a Dell, as long as they use Windows, since they're a software company, not a hardware company. If a former PC user wants to buy a Mac and run Windows too, no problem, because MS sold their product and got their money. By making it harder and more expensive to run Vista on a Mac, they prove that they're scared to death of what will happen if people get a chance to use OS X. Nice.

I don't see this as a detriment. Anybody buying a Mac is doing so because they are fed up with Windows. They won't be inclined to purchase any version of Vista to run whatever Windows specific programs they have. They will use XP.

Frankly, I'm pleased to see MSFT do this. It confirms that Windows share is bleeding.

I see another massive fine coming their way...

XP is cheaper for switchers since they have it already.

And anyway, can't nowadays Crossover et al run Win apps without running a copy of Winblows?

Why do u guys copy/paste things wrote on other websites (in this case hardmac.com/macbidouille.com) without even citing them).

And for the info, they were wrong too...

Of course u can use Vista Home in Parallels, the only thing u can't do is: use the licence of a machine to run virtualization, meaning if u install your vista licence on bootcamp u cant use it with parallels, or if u bought a dell with vista u cant use this licence on your macbook with parallels. Make sense right ?

Kesh
http://www.macosx86.net

More likely it is just M$ covering their bases to make sure they are not liable if their sofware does not run on an otherwise recognized platform. Apple does the same by stating in several places "Remember, Apple Computer does not sell or support Microsoft Windows." You may be able to load Vista Home on a Mac but M$ won't support it, so they are not liable. At the same time if you want support from them, well that will only cost you $$$$.

I wasn't planning on "upgrading" to Vista anyway.

Why would I?

Is this even enforcable? Also, installing it on a MacBook isn't virtualization.

Didn't I read that an unactivated Vista will still run in a feature limited demo mode? Oooh in Demo mode I can only get on the internet for one hour per day. That will hardly harm someone running Vista under Parallels or VMware.

Yeah, it sounds to me like this is just a software agreement, and not something that stops it from working. Kind of like when you but a single license of software, but put it on your laptop as well.....not that I would do that.

Mafia$oft is bailing water out of a sinking ship that has a hole the size of Paris Hilton's.

Who knows, maybe Leopord will include a way to run two OS's natavily at the same time and switch between them, or maybe even have one in a window, or have them both side by side.

So they'll just limit Vista from being purchased by doing this. Everyone will stick with XP which at this point is probably a good idea. I would like to know how they are going to know if you are running it on a virtual machine or a real one. Are they going to incorporate some kind of software to detect a virtual enviroment? Or is this some kind of stupid scare tactic.

Man, what is next.... ok, so MacroSwift is preventing the use of virtualization..... what's next, a deal with Dell where the License states you can't run it in any branded computer other than Dell ?

What does MS have to gain by this ? To me it is just plain jealousy and being scared sh!tless over the whole OSX thing - to me this is simply a very imature business move - "WAAAAAAH - Apple makes OSes so much better than mine.... lets punish anyone that doesn't buy our piece of @#!$"

I would think that this could eventually be construed as monopolizing with PC Hardware manufacturers anyways.... Microsoft is trying to coerce a market that they have no skin in.

Wonder how VMWare will take this news

To TJ: That's been true for quite a while already - the standard OEM Windows is tied to the machine it came on and can't be transfered to a new machine.

To Everyone: There's another "little gem" in this new license:
15. REASSIGN TO ANOTHER DEVICE.
a. Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade. The first user of the software may
reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device
becomes the “licensed device.”

Even if you buy a retail upgrade - you can only move it to a new computer ONCE!

M$ is total crap. I wish the flush would just happen...

Hey!!! no big deal

I made the switch last July, use parallels with XP for a few app's (work) not on the Mac,

myself and the vast majority of Parallels user have no intention of ever using Vista, If it comes down that I need a "Vista only" app, (work) I will use boot camp.

Just a scare tactic by M$

GREEEEEEEEEEEED !!!!!!!
I need say no more

MS is trying to bend us over and zune us again.

Two things:

1) Boot Camp will legally allow a dual boot of Vista.
2) Fast user switching will enable on the fly tabbing between OS's (ie. between Vista and OS X)

One more thing:

1) Vista sucks zune squirts.

Yea, earth to Mac heads: you read the EULA wrong. The restriction does not prevent you from running the OS on Virtualized hardware, it prevents you from running a SECOND COPY of the OS in a VM. The Ultimate/Business licenses DO ALLOW you to run essentially two copies, one physical and one virtual. So, not only is this not a new restriction, it is actually a give-away from Microsoft since no version of XP allows simultaneous host/guest use under one license today.

now what does someone do in a mac collumn that has a handle called Fanboy killer.. gee let me guess why they are here.. ummmmm nope sorry cant figure that one...