Please support our Tech Talk advertiser:
Feb 25th, 2007, 6:48 pm
Probably the last thing you would expect to hear is that Microsoft is trying to restrict the machines that their new operating system can run on. After all, don't they want as many computers running Vista as possible (legally)? Well, Microsoft is actually forcing anyone who wants to emulate Vista to buy Vista Business or Vista Ultimate.
I'm simply aghast at this move. It's as if Microsoft is trying to cut down Parallels Workstation usage, the Mac OS X software that allows you to virutalize Windows and other operating systems.
There is no technical reason for this move, either. The processors that run on Macs are identical to the ones on a PC. Which I should clarify: I would suppose that it's still allowed to run Home editions of Vista on Mac, provided that you're using Boot Camp to run the software natively, and not emulated with VMWare or Parallels. The same applies to Microsoft's free Virtual PC 2007; you must buy Business or Ultimate version of Vista if you want it emulated.
ITWire says that Microsoft is striking against the pirates by trying to raise the costs of using Vista. They've also implemented extra security measures, too. ITWire reports that if in Windows XP the server doesn't think the copy if valid, you are unable to download updates. In Vista, they say that your entire session is disabled, "offering you only a 1 hour session with a web browser at your disposal".
However, I do not believe this to be the case. For one thing, most of the piracy was not actually happening by people emulating Windows, it was the Bittorent addicts who downloaded and installed it natively on their system, in which case the edition wouldn't matter, even if it were an issue when running it natively on the computer.
Regardless of Microsoft's motive, this is quite surprising to say the least, and it is likely to cut down the popularity of Vista on the Mac platform, not to mention the sales of Parallels and VMWare...
I'm simply aghast at this move. It's as if Microsoft is trying to cut down Parallels Workstation usage, the Mac OS X software that allows you to virutalize Windows and other operating systems.
There is no technical reason for this move, either. The processors that run on Macs are identical to the ones on a PC. Which I should clarify: I would suppose that it's still allowed to run Home editions of Vista on Mac, provided that you're using Boot Camp to run the software natively, and not emulated with VMWare or Parallels. The same applies to Microsoft's free Virtual PC 2007; you must buy Business or Ultimate version of Vista if you want it emulated.
ITWire says that Microsoft is striking against the pirates by trying to raise the costs of using Vista. They've also implemented extra security measures, too. ITWire reports that if in Windows XP the server doesn't think the copy if valid, you are unable to download updates. In Vista, they say that your entire session is disabled, "offering you only a 1 hour session with a web browser at your disposal".
However, I do not believe this to be the case. For one thing, most of the piracy was not actually happening by people emulating Windows, it was the Bittorent addicts who downloaded and installed it natively on their system, in which case the edition wouldn't matter, even if it were an issue when running it natively on the computer.
Regardless of Microsoft's motive, this is quite surprising to say the least, and it is likely to cut down the popularity of Vista on the Mac platform, not to mention the sales of Parallels and VMWare...
This blog entry was written by John Altenmueller, staff writer aka John A. It has received 1,560 views, 8 comments, and 1 linkback. 3 voters have rated this entry an average of 4.33 out of 5 stars. It was promoted to featured status Feb 25th, 2007.
•
•
•
•
advertising ajax apple ballmer bill gates business computer console development exploit firefox flash games gaming google hardware ibm icahn linux merger microsoft mobile mozilla news novell office operating os pc red hat search security server silverlight software sp1 survey system technology upgrade virtualization vista web windows xbox xbox 360 xp yahoo yang zune
All Recent Tags Comments (Newest First)
jbennet | Microsoft Fanboy | Feb 27th, 2007
•
•
•
•
I hate vista.
jbennet | Microsoft Fanboy | Feb 27th, 2007
•
•
•
•
yeah its stupid. Virtual PC 2007 or Virtual Server 2005 wont install on XP home ed. But Virtual PC 2004 will (even although it says it cant)?
John A | Vampire Moderator | Feb 26th, 2007
jbennet | Microsoft Fanboy | Feb 26th, 2007
•
•
•
•
is this why virtual server wont install on xp home?
RwCC | Junior Poster | Feb 26th, 2007
•
•
•
•
This is a crazy move. I use VMW a lot, often running Windows XP or Vista to test my code. Why on earth would I want to go to a different machine, test my work, come back to my desk to fix anything, go back and re-test?!
It is far easier for me to test on VMW and fix problems here, then use a proper dedicated machine.
Plus I can see this hitting smaller development companies rather hard. Afterall most systems that currently use Vista or XP as an em'ed image are up-to-spec machines. If they had to buy multiple development machines to run the image, the cost could be rather large.
It is far easier for me to test on VMW and fix problems here, then use a proper dedicated machine.
Plus I can see this hitting smaller development companies rather hard. Afterall most systems that currently use Vista or XP as an em'ed image are up-to-spec machines. If they had to buy multiple development machines to run the image, the cost could be rather large.
lasher511 | Posting Shark | Feb 25th, 2007
•
•
•
•
Does not really bother me just means that microsoft miss out on my money all together.
I would have put vista on my Mac if i could use home edition to do so, however since microsoft are being tools about it i think i will pass on that one.
I would have put vista on my Mac if i could use home edition to do so, however since microsoft are being tools about it i think i will pass on that one.
John A | Vampire Moderator | Feb 25th, 2007
TheNNS | Nearly a Posting Virtuoso | Feb 25th, 2007
•
•
•
•
Microsoft had announced they were doing this long before vista came out. Although it's illegal to emulate Vista, it's not impossilbe; in fact, it's the same as if you wanted to emulate business or ultimate. I agree this is a stupid move by microsoft. What are developers going to do? I guess they'll have to install vista on a separate machine, which will be a pain, instead of installing it on a vm, which would be so much easier. MS clearly doesn't understand anything about piracy.
Post Comment
•
•
•
•
Only community members can start a blog or comment on blog entries. You must register or log in to contribute.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
DaniWeb Tech Talk Marketplace
Related Blog Entries
- Guild Wars 2: In-House FAQ (14 Hours Ago)
- Intel To Focus on Devices, Again (1 Day Ago)
- 5-4-3-2-1 your website in infected (2 Days Ago)
- Apple ships 2.5 million Macs, sells 11 million iPods and 717,000 iPhones in just 3 months (3 Days Ago)
- Limbo 2 Trojan comes complete with guarantee of invisibility (3 Days Ago)
- More Dark Spots on Apple's MobileMe Migration (4 Days Ago)
- Power-Sipping PC Runs Linux (4 Days Ago)
- Fake UPS invoices deliver Pushdo botnet package (5 Days Ago)
- Crystal Ball Sunday #8: Virtual Appliances (5 Days Ago)
- How to put in a new motherboard without losing your Operating System (9 Days Ago)
Related Forum Threads
- What is 'YOUR' vista experience score. (Windows Vista)
- Vista Networking/Permissions Issue (Windows Vista)
- my vista cant support plug n play features!!!! (Peripherals)
- Need program to keep eye on daughter's pc usage.. (Techies' Lounge)
- Vista RTM download (Windows Vista)
- windows vista and office 2007 (Techies' Lounge)
- XP Home and printer sharing (Windows NT / 2000 / XP / 2003)
- Removal of "Home Search Assistant", "Search Extender", & "Shopping Wizard" (Viruses, Spyware and other Nasties)
- Windows Does Not Start - New Mobo (Motherboards, CPUs and RAM)
Featured Entry
I don't know exact details, although it doesn't seem like Microsoft was unable to implement it. Yes, it's probably a similar mentality that they want people to buy the Server or Professional edition of XP, much like they now want people to buy Business or Ultimate versions of Vista if you want to emulate them.