Comments on: Week in review: Try to read Microsoft's hips

On the eve of announcing a change in Vista that people have clamored for, the company reverses course and then clams up.

[AndreaFerro]

avoiding piracy? may actually make it worse!

The idea that MS could have not allowed VM installation because
someone may decide to buy only one licence and run it on
multiple macs is broken, IMO.

In fact, as your licence currently does not let you run even a
single copy in a VM, there's now no point in buying the OS at
all.

And if you ARE running it in a VM, there's no point in paying to
become legal as it'll just not happen.

Besides ... why Vista in a VM on a Mac? If you are there you are
using OsX for most things and Windows only for some legacy
stuff or for testing/development (as in IE testing of your site).
In that case you have no reason to buy Vista: just go buy XP.

[Fil0403]

Idea is broken? May actually not be at all!

The idea that MS could have not allowed VM installation because someone may decide to buy only one licence and run it on multiple Macs is very valid, in any unbiased person's opinion. In fact, you say my license currently does not let me run even a single copy in a VM? Maybe next time you should research before you speak, because Home Premium and Ultimate (for instance) let you run a copy in a VM. So, if you ARE running it in a VM (I thought you said that's impossible?), there's a point in paying to become legal as it can happen. Either way: why Vista in a VM on a Mac? Simple: because, as what happens with any Windows, sooner or later XP won't be supported anymore and some software will only run in Vista. Yeah, if you are "there" you are "only" using Windows to play all your games and half of your software (following your logic, 90+% of the world uses Windows just for legacy stuff and 85+% uses IE just for testing their sites, which is very realistic, I should say). In any case, you have all reasons to buy Vista: go buy XP and then complain you have to go buy Vista too anyway because half of your (tomorrow) software and hardware doesn't work in XP.

[shadowself]

Not security

It's not about security. It's about making money.

Is Microsoft now saying that Vista has security problems? I don't think so.

It's about making people buy the more expensive versions of Vista. Any individual, SOHO or small business that wanted to use the less expensive options under virtualization now cannot legally do so. They must buy the more expensive versions.

It's just another extortion method so common from Redmond.

[FutureGuy]

Why would a...

...SOHO need to run Vista desktop OS under virtualization unless one wants to run it on a Mac, for someone running a Mac, MS is not too keen to have them run Vista on Mac if one really wants it pay for it, after all they already paid a boat load to get a Mac.

[arluthier]

OSX VM'd?

Pardon my ingornance about the subject but... can OSX be virtualized on a Vista install running on non-Apple hardware?

I tinkered with a *cough* "tester" *cough* a while back that was OSX inside VMware on XP. And it was buggy and slow as all get out. Enough so that if I didn't know better I would say OSX was garbage. But I know that it was the VM setup that made it apear this way. But this might be part of M$ thought process.

If Vista would not run well on the VM then why allow it, just to make themselves look bad?

Personally I would like to be able to run OS X in my VM on XP or Vista... (if it would run efficently) but we ALL know APPLE wouldn't allow it. So why the hell is everyone whining about MS not allowing it? Come on... the OSX license comes right out and say you can't run it on anything other than apple branded hardware.

[ethana2]

Yes.

And I'm not giving Apple a cent as long as it does.
Then again, I'm not dishing out any of my money to Microsoft, either- I'm a Linux guy, but...

I almost don't care anymore. "Oh hey, proprietary software is overly limiting." NO REALLY. What else is new?

[Hoser McMoose]

Read Microsoft's hips?

I guess we all know that Microsoft's hips don't lie! :)

Ohh, looks like they've already corrected the headline! Geez, come on C-Net! That was a fun typo, you coulda left it in for a little longer!

[BlackieBernard]

Virtual machines

Being an old guy, I guess that I'm confused. I remember the Burroughs 5500 and 360/67, both virtual machines. They were great. I have often wondered why this old idea didn't survive in pc-s. Clearly the only reasons are laziness on the part of designers, and greed on the part of the machine companies.

[Albertv]

Microsoft's hips?

Enough Microsoft!

I have gone back to XP and W2K. There are enough virus, malware and firewall apps out there to make W2k secure, behind a good router. Budgeting to upgrade equipment to Apple hardware and software.

[Xenu7-214951314497503184010868]

Macs getting too popular

"Security" is just a pretext for forcing Mac users to pay more and prevent more switchers. If they're not using "security" as a pretext, Microsoft is admitting that Home versions are less secure than pricier versions-- not a good sign. So which is it? Market share or poor security? Makes me want to go out and purchase lots of Microsoft products. Not.

[jburkega]

WTFO

So tell me again how many computers MS sells or manufactures. " If
you are really serious about software you should build your own
hardware" someone said. Nuff said.

[Fil0403]

WTFO?

So tell me again what is Apple's OS market share. If your product is the best in your market, it will sell the most, I say. 'Nuff said.

[Fil0403]

I thought Windows/Vista sucked?

Yet all news of this kind seem to **** and worry many Apple fanboys. Science case study: it sucks, yet everybody needs and wants it.

[Fil0403]

Apple Safari

When the browser has 3 security vulnerabilities disclosed in the first 3 hours of beta availability, it's certainly not the fact that pages load 0.01 ms faster without Phishing Filter and pictures have 263 million colors instead of 262 million that will make me (and much probably the other 85+% of people with computers who use IE) switch to buggy and unsecure Apple Safari.

[phobet]

Forced "Upgrade" == Greed

I think the subject says it all. Micro$oft probably considered how they can divert the river of virtualization, reep (sp?) the monetary benefits, with the minimum of effort on their part.

Sorta like how the newest games published by them "require" Windows Vista, for no technical reason I can fathom...

Micro$oft: If Vista can't make it on its own merits, why bother?