Microsoft reverses itself again on Vista virtualization
Most people expect some flip-flopping in an election year, but not usually from their software vendor.
Nonetheless, Microsoft on Monday changed its mind again, saying it will allow users to run Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium as guest operating systems on a virtual machine. The news is especially welcome for Mac users who want to run the latest Windows version without having to pay an arm and a leg. Until now, Mac users and others wanting to run Vista virtually have had to fork over for the most expensive Business and Ultimate versions.
Microsoft had briefed reporters in June that it was going to expand Vista's virtualization options, but then for reasons that were never made clear, it reversed itself and never announced such a move.
The reasoning behind the limitation never made that much sense to me. Microsoft's argument was that running Vista in a virtual machine represented some security risks. The company said it was not the case that the Ultimate or Business versions had less of a security risk than the Home editions, but rather that by limiting virtualization to the pricier versions, ideally only more technically sophisticated people would make the move.
In any case, Monday's move will certainly be welcomed by enthusiasts, Mac users, and virtualization software vendors such as Parallels.
Microsoft group product manager Patrick O'Rourke said in a telephone interview Monday: "Now is the right time, we believe, to make it easier for technical enthusiasts...to experience and see if virtualization is right for them."
As for the flip-flop in June, O'Rourke wouldn't go into the specific thinking behind either the planned move or its reversal. "There was some internal discussion still occurring at the time," he said.
The Vista change was just one of several announcements made by Microsoft on Monday. The company also said it is buying Calista Technologies, a San Jose, Calif.-based company that has technology to improve the performance of remote desktops. The company has a patented approach for creating a virtualized graphics processor, which can help with 3D and other image-rendering tasks when doing so-called "presentation virtualization." Microsoft also expanded its alliance with thin-client specialist Citrix Systems.
Microsoft is also cutting the price of a new product for large businesses that want to run Vista on a server and use either a PC or thin client to act as a terminal to display the information. O'Rourke said that businesses that are part of its Software Assurance program will be able to use the technology by paying a license fee. For Windows PCs, the charge is $23 per machine a year, while thin clients will require a fee of about $110 annually.
That represents a price cut of about 25 percent to 50 percent compared with Microsoft's original plans.
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. 
2...
1...
It will be a long wait.
I have asked my IT dept. to leave XP on the Windows box, and
have no intention of installing Vista in any form on my Mac. XP
works fine for my Windows needs, and the experience of others
in my office whose computers have been converted to Vista,
while not terrible, isn't compelling. It's slow and, for some, very
confusing.
It's a smart move for MS to boost boxed Windows sales, but I
don't see any reason to give up XP on either platform.
Besides, virtualization actually makes Windows a little bit more secure.
http://tinyurl.com/ypjv43
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1079
There isn't a company out there who wouldn't love a 'flop' like Vista, regardless of what you mindless zombies make up about it.
Apple dropped the price of the iPhone... why? Certainly not because they were being charitable or that they had such a huge inventory that they wanted to clear it out at cost- no, it was to boost sales.
It's just normal business practice.
But by your logic, this means the Apple iPhone is a complete and utter failure, doesn't it? Or is Apple immune from basic business practices and reality?
This is the sort of bigotry that gives Apple enthusiasts a bad name, unfortunately.
"Sorry but too many virtual tcp-ip connections open on the main host. Please buy the new Microsoft multiple tcp-ip tierd plan to resolve future issues." Microsoft always kill competition in some way or another.
People are reverting [b]from[/b] Vista [b]to[/b] XP.
However with this much capability here now on earth it ain't capability stopping you from evolving now is it.
Think about it?
Go on then microsoft have a go but i curse you for anyone you intentionally flush without true wisdom behind your calculation.
Oh you got that one right if you were thinking it oh how i'm tired and wish you actually were.
Yes Mankind is seriously lacking in wisdom and scope.
The latest release candidate did require a 20 minute download. After restart, (Hello World restart, MSHW 2008 no longer requires an OS restart) it installed a new Download Manager. The new MSHW 2008 download manager did find five new security updates.
MSHW 2008 is a very unique product, however I do not think that I will buy it when it hits the stores.
I am thinking about a Mac book pro. And after using Vista I will
put XP in it, if I want something from Microsoft.
I have thought about loading XP, in My wife's PC. If I do I will lose
any warranty on the new PC. So I will wait and see what the first
Vista service pack does.
But taking Vista off because it has bugs is silly. Windows XP has bugs. When Service Pack 3 for XP comes out XP will still have bugs. All software has bugs.
There's a million better reasons to take Vista off other than that. Hardware compatibility problems, wastes RAM and resources. The Start Menu is ugly. That's my personal favorite.
What exactly are they "allowing" me to do that I could not already do? It appears that MS was stretching the licence agreement to prohibit my using vista for it's intended purpose. As an OS on any freaking thing I can get it to run on.
- Technically sophisticated
- by Jim Harmon January 22, 2008 8:32 AM PST
- [i]The company said it was not the case that the Ultimate or Business versions had less of a security risk than the Home editions, but rather that by limiting virtualization to the pricier versions, ideally only more technically sophisticated people would make the move.[/i]
- Reply to this comment
-
(47 Comments)PC vs Mac argument aside, isn't it fairly safe to say that the more technically sophisticated people ARE the ones using a Mac?
And... haven't they become used to overpaying for what they get?
(Had to be fair and take a shot at both camps) :)