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...

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.

>I guess they'll have to install vista on a separate machine
No, they'll just end up buying either the business or ultimate edition, which is what Microsoft intended anyway. Where it really hurts is for the average person who simply wants to emulate Windows-inside-Windows for separate work environments, but cannot afford to buy a more expensive version of Vista.

>MS clearly doesn't understand anything about piracy.
Yes, ironically it will be hurting the legal users far harder than it will be hurting the pirates. The pirates can just go and download a different edition of Vista, whereas the people who legally use it actually have to go out and buy another copy of Vista. Reminds me of the royalties that you have to pay when buying CD-Rs to compensate for the music piracy.

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.

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.

is this why virtual server wont install on xp home?

>is this why virtual server wont install on xp home?
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.

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)?