If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.
Posted on 2/9/2007, 2:29:15 AM by Swordmaker
Updated 8 Feb 07: Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems using virtualization technology.*
It appears Microsoft doesn’t want to make life easy for Mac users
The end-user license agreement for the cheaper versions of Vista (Home Basic and Home Premium) explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (ie Macs pretending to be PCs):
“You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system,” the end user license agreement states.
However, the more expensive Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions, can be installed on a virtual machine. From the end user license agreement:
“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.”
The Home Basic version of vista costs US$199, compared to US$299 for the Enterprise edition (the cheapest version of Vista for everyone else, compared to the cheapest version of Vista for Mac users). This means that Mac users are being slugged an extra $100 (let’s call it a tax) for simply being Mac users.
It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, you’re not able to play or access content protected by Microsoft’s digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption won’t work.
Parallels Desktop for Mac is a hardware emulation vitalization software package that allows Mac users to install Vista on their systems. The head of marketing at Parallels, Ben Rudolph, is understandably upset by Microsoft’s licensing policy:
To me, this strategy could hold back users who embrace cutting-edge technologies like vitalization, which means they won’t upgrade to Vista. This means that Microsoft has effectively lost an upgrade customer (in the case of Windows PCs) or an entirely new customer (for Mac and Linux users),” wrote Rudolph on Parallel’s official blog.
With Microsoft being tardy about a new version of Mac Office (apparently it’s coming in later this year), and the feud between Gates and Jobs intensifying in recent weeks, Mac users could be forgiven for thinking that Microsoft is going out of its way to make life difficult.
* Update/clarification - the Vista end-user license agreement does not forbid the installation of Vista using Apple’s Bootcamp. However, if Vista is installed using Bootcamp, you cannot run it concurrently with Mac OS. With Bootcamp, all you’ve got is a PC living in the body of your Mac - you can either use the PC or use the Mac, not both at the same time. In which case, what’s the point?
This also means that you can't (legally) use it with WINE or the other Windows-On-Linux/BSD virtualization tools.
This is stupid. The Intel Macs don't emulate PCs. They are PCs, but just come with a different OS.
Also, it's not clear whether Microsoft's restrictions on the less expensive versions constitute a violation of their antitrust agreement. They agreed to cease their anti-competitive restrictions on boot-loaders as part of the settlement. This sounds like a similar anti-competitive tactic.
What's Apple charge for a copy of OSX licensed to run on a PC?
I read somewhere that Vista was to have a built-in "phone home" feature so Micros**t can verify that it is a legitimate purchase. I remember some outrage at this and it's possible that the feature was deleted or at least well-hidden.
I smell collusion between Micros**t and Dell on this one. Dell probably agreed to stop shipping PC's without Microsh**t in exchange for Microsh**t punishing Apple.
I believe Mr. Peel said its $179.00 for a 5/user pack for the intel iMacs that we have. Mac OS X won't run on any PC. For example, you could not install it on a Gateway Pentium.
I know that Apple has their policy because they believe the software is more stable on their platform and because their profit strategy works better that way. MS, OTOH, I think, wants to damage Apple, as it has gone from being a minor pain to being a genuine concern. MS has always believed that the best computer strategy is the strategy of the Borg. I think they also fear people getting used to having another OS, and liking it better.
I honestly don't think this licensing restriction has anything to do with Macs. Just as with XP, they want to charge more for the versions that have greater functionality.
I was trying out a new piece of software a few months back on a spare laptop, and as part of the test I needed to share a SQL database over a network. But I couldn't do it on that laptop because it ran XP Home, and on the network component of the software required XP Pro.
Similarly, virtualization isn't yet something most casual or home users run. Those who do want or need that technology are expected to "step up" to a more advanced version - those capabilities are the reason they have different levels of the OS at different price points. Sometime this year I'm looking to deploy a server running several virtual machines, none of which need to do anything very fancy. OSX and Linux aren't options, so it's a case of MS getting to charge me an extra $100 per VM because the Vista version that runs in a VM costs an extra $100 over the version that doesn't (or isn't licensed to).*
I just wanted to point out the silliness of Mac lovers getting up in arms about some (IMO nonexistent) conspiracy to charge them more, when Apple doesn't permit the same functionality to PC users at any price.
*-Actually the plan is to buy a stack of XP Pro licenses from eBay or somewhere, because I don't want to migrate. But the point is the same.
I think if we're talking about Darwin, you are right. But I don't believe that OS X with the Aqua interface can run on just any PC.
I'm not sure that EULA would stand up in court. A Mac, particularly now that it is powered by Intel processors (the same processor base that Windows Vista is designed to run on).
I would like to see MS try to get a decision in their favor if, say I had an Intel mac, went and bought the "regular" version of Vista and installed it under Parallels. First - because the EULA is contained within the package - thus requiring the opening of the package (thus making it unreturnable to retail sources) to read.
Further - this is absolutely no different than if MS restricted the cheaper version of Vista to use on Intel processors only - requiring the expensive version to run it on an AMD processor. I could understand if there were some sort of code difference that REQUIRED a different version with the appropriate code.
This is a direct reaction to the Apple ad campaign... You would think they would be happy to make sales to Mac users. Heck - if Vista were so great and grand, they would be looking at prospective future Windows PC users... Because if it were SOOOO great, then Mac users would use it in "virtual machine" or by using Boot Camp (which, by the way is a legitimate way of making your Intel mac into a "real" PC - as it is not running as a virtual machine) and be convinced that Vista was superior to OS X.
So what is MS so afraid of?
I can't understand why Apple doesn't make a version of OS X that will ONLY run inside a virtualized environment on a PC. Then PC users could try it without buying the expensive hardware - theoretically resulting in more sales if they indeed liked the interface better than their PC interface and decided to purchase the real thing. For the record, I think the Mac OS X interface is kludgy and boring, and I can't stand to navigate through a Mac interface. So, no amount of trial would convince me that the Mac is better for me, but I can imagine that if OS X is so superior, then letting PC users try it out would result in an upshot in sales.
And OSX is only "legally" able to run on "Apple" computers. So what is the big deal?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.