Is need for control behind Microsoft's flip-flop?
While many were left scratching their heads over Microsoft's decision not to ease its Vista virtualization rules, one reader sent in an interesting theory.
For those who missed the story earlier this week, Microsoft was on the eve of allowing home versions of Vista to run inside virtual machines, but abruptly shifted course and said it would stick to rules that only allow the Ultimate and Business versions to run inside virtual machines. That left lots of folks disappointed and confused as to why Microsoft was doing such a thing.
San Diego developer Floyd James posits that one reason Microsoft wants to keep the status quo is that although virtualization can mean more revenue for Microsoft's Windows business, it also opens the door for the operating system to be in a less central role.
"It is likely to mean that some other OS is running directly on the hardware instead of Windows, and there is the motive," James said in an e-mail. "Microsoft controls the market and by letting another OS on hardware and allowing a migration path by allowing a cheap copy of Windows to act as the compatibility layer is not protecting their monopoly and/or control of the market."
A Mac running Parallels fits this example, offering Windows compatibility while allowing much of a user's desktop life to exist in Apple's world.
"There are many many many cases where Microsoft is willing to spend billions just to make sure the Windows gravy train is protected," James wrote. "Virtual machines are a migration tool for those looking to get out from under Microsoft's control."
Microsoft has declined to comment on the reasons behind the move.
Meanwhile, Gartner analyst Michael Silver took Microsoft to task for its continued restrictions.
"Microsoft's policies...come off as a way to gouge customers," Silver said in an e-mail, noting that customers are forced to pay for higher priced editions, even though they don't get many of the benefits, like the Aero user interface, which often won't work in a virtual machine.
Silver argues that Microsoft is likely leaving money on the table. "Allowing use of lower priced (editions) could even be worth more money to Microsoft as it would likely increase the number of people that would legally run a Microsoft OS in a VM (like on a Mac)," Silver wrote. "Eventually they will have no choice but to make their peace with virtualization."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
To make an analogy MS is quite happy to rent you a house and you can decorate the rooms any way you want (so long as its not an oh so special HD room, for that you have to use their interior designer ;). But don't try to move to another house and hope to bring the contents of that room with....that... that will cost you.
Its simple protectionism, I would respect them more if they would just admit it, instead of trotting out weak excuses.
Vista is crippled out of the box.
Apple and OSS get out of the users way.
Comparing the decision on Apple to only support certain hardware, does not count as control. It is what the user can do on the OS that counts.
Don't like the default media player, web browser, chat program, email client, etc? In non-MS OS's you can actually uninstall them. You can not in windows, because MS doesn't want you to.
MS got where they are through control of its customers and OEM's. Not through building a better, more reliable and secure mousetrap.
If they relinquish that control, that would mean that they would actually have to put out quality products to survive. That is something they rarely do.
1. Vista is not a satisfying upgrade from XP on older hardware.
2. Dell (and likely others soon) are already offering Linux as an OEM install at a discount compared to the Windows OEM machines.
3. Vista is difficult to pirate.
4. Without limitations of virtualization MS reasons that people will strictly buy the home basic edition to run some Windows software while using Linux for everything else.
Microsoft is making this move to prevent desktop competition not to prevent virtual Windows machines. Ultimate offers no security features that are exclusive to Ultimate so the security line is just a farse.
- Showing off Vista
- by mikeburek June 22, 2007 9:11 PM PDT
- Well, if you have 2 Vista computers side by side, one with Ultimate and one with Basic, the Ultimate will look better since Basic doesn't support Aero at all (right?).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(7 Comments)So if you are using another OS, such as Mac OS and with Parallels are using Vista Basic, that user will say "Hey, Mac OS is very pretty and Vista looks pretty plain. I'll stick with Mac."
But what Microsoft wants the person to say is "Wow, Vista is even prettier than Mac OS. I'm switching to Windows Vista."
So they just want to keep an "even" playing field in comparisons.
It's like when a car commercial for the Honda Civic says it has the most interior room for it's class. Sure, among little cars it might, but you can't compare it to an SUV's interior space.