Microsoft flip-flops on Vista virtualization

Microsoft planned this week to announce that it was broadening the virtualization rights for Windows Vista, but decided at the last minute to reverse course and stick with existing limits.

The software maker had briefed reporters and analysts on plans to allow the Home versions of Vista to run in virtual machines, addressing criticisms from virtualization enthusiasts and Mac users who had chafed at having to buy one of the two priciest versions of Windows in order to run Vista in a virtual machine.

Software like Parallels Desktop for the Mac or Microsoft's own Virtual PC for Windows allow multiple operating systems to run simultaneously. When it announced licensing rules for Vista last year, Microsoft said that only Vista Business and Vista Ultimate could run as guest operating systems. The company said virtualization presents inherent security risks and that it hoped by limiting which versions of the OS could act as virtual machines, only sophisticated users and businesses would employ the tactic.

On the Mac in particular, though, virtualization has become a consumer feature and many people wanted to use the Home versions of Vista, which Microsoft executives concede present no additional security risk.

The company said in interviews this week that it was still concerned about the security risks, but said it was going to make the change and leave the choice up to users.

"Virtualization enthusiasts would like to make that choice," said Scott Woodgate, a director in the Windows Business Group. "We're really responding to that feedback."

Earlier this week, when Microsoft was believed to be planning to make the licensing changes, Parallels praised the software maker and said it was pleased it had listened to customers.

"When we got the news we were obviously very, very happy," Benjamin Rudolph, Parallels director of corporate communications, said Monday before Microsoft changed its mind. In that interview, Rudolph said that his users had struggled to understand Microsoft's rationale for limiting which versions of Vista could run alongside the Mac OS. "They want to use Vista, but they were a little confused as to why they had to pay $400."

After Microsoft's reversal, Rudolph expressed disappointment with the decision.

"While we're disappointed that Microsoft won't be changing the Vista (license agrement) to permit users to run all versions of Vista in a virtual machine, it is ultimately up to Microsoft to decide how they want to license their own software, and we respect their decision," Rudolph said in an e-mail to CNET News.com. "We'll definitely keep working with Microsoft on this issue."

Microsoft provided little explanation for the about-face.

"Microsoft has reassessed the Windows virtualization policy and decided that we will maintain the original policy announced last fall," the software maker said in a statement late Tuesday.

[MichaelWorobec]

Yeah, Right

This licensing term will not withstand a real legal test. Please, someone, bring on the test! The claim that Microsoft's limits on Vista Home is for security reasons is nothing but a big fat lie. It is simply that virtualizaiton is the single biggest threat to Microsoft's OS hegemony. I hope we don't let bogus licensing terms prevent legitimate technological developments from destroying their undeserved dominance.

[Lee in San Diego]

More sales?

"It is simply that virtualizaiton is the single biggest threat to <br />Microsoft's OS hegemony"<br /><br />I don't understand why MicroSoft cares if Vista is running on a <br />virtual machine or a "brick and mortar" machine. Either way they <br />sell a license for Vista. Am I missing something?

[Jesus#2]

a little worried...

that's how MS feels right now.

[Stating]

Vista = 2x Memory

Vista sucks up twice as much memory as XP just for the OS. Unless you have gobs of extra memory to waste, it's a better choice to run XP in a virtual machine. An even better choice is Windows 2000, which uses half as much memory as XP.

[keypox]

2x not quite

no your so wrong ... while vista is pretty crappy right now ... it uses the same amount of memory on my computer with desktop thingy closed. <br /><br />pretty close to the same... if anything maybe 50mb more

[Lindy01]

Stating = clueless

Its called super fetch. Vista will use idle ram to speed things up, searches, frequently used applications....etc.<br /><br />If an application needs the RAM....it gives it up. With XP or 2000...your extra RAM you bought to play some game is wasted 90% of the time.<br /><br />www.rif.org it has helped many.

[Maccess]

That's just dumb and myopic.

One of the main reasons to run a guest OS is to test software products and designs.<br /><br />If a developer has Vista Business as his main OS, he would still need Vista Home for some testing.<br /><br />What MS' decision means is that developers will have to get a second PC to run Vista Home, comtributing more carbon to global warming.<br /><br />So very anti-environment.

[catch23]

Please look into things before posting

This is exactly how bad info gets passed around, until it is considered 'fact', when in fact it is just FUD<br /><br />If you are a developer, and part of MSDN(which most are), you can run ANY Vista in a virtual environment.<br />Remember the whole Developers, developers, developers thing? MS is still quite dedicated to them, and getting them to write software for the PC.<br /><br />If your on a Mac? I'd personally go ahead and run Home regardless. Is it against the letter of the EULA? Yes, but I don't think MS will care. They just don't want to support it.

[Battleshipagincourt]

Microsoft is Pathetic!

There is a reason for the cheaper version of the Vista OS: they don't <br />buy the additional applications added to the premium versions. No <br />one would want to pay extra for a worthless collection of inferior <br />software from Vista when they have the ilife suite. Those that buy <br />Vista to put on a MAC simply want the OS; the rest of the software <br />is not worth the space on the hard drive.<br /> If Microsoft goes through with this, I WILL NOT buy Vista. This <br />idea would only hurt Microsoft, so they dismiss it out of hand.

[sfergy227]

Hmm

Because everyone knows that the OS gives you everything you need. Who needs all those applications to waste all that space on your hard drive?<br /><br />*sigh*

[Zandor]

i don't think microsoft really cares run your itools they suck anyways(NT)

(NT)

[Xenu7-214951314497503184010868]

Macs getting too popular

No other reason.

[Penguinisto]

The cure:

1) Install Linux w/ Xen<br /><br />2) Run Vista Home on that (if you, err, actually [i]want[/i] to run <br />Vista...)<br /><br />3) Tell MSFT what they can do w/ their EULA. It isn't as if they're <br />going to bang down your door and demand to inspect your <br />computer (on the minus side, no tech support...)<br /><br />/P

[georgiarat]

Microsoft what else does need one to say

Microsoft gives less about their customers that almost any <br />entity I can think of, except the US GOVT. They should have <br />been broken up in the 90's but it did not happen because of <br />their contributions to Clinton. <br /><br />They are a monopoly that should have been broken up long <br />ago.<br /><br />They are the virus on the intellectual capital of the US, if not <br />the world.

[Terrence Koonce]

Microsoft worried one license could used on mulitple "Virtual Machines"?

Apple has addressed this with Boot Camp. Simply restart any <br />Intel Mac running Boot Camp and then run Vista. No virtual <br />machine needed. This will not stop anyone from buying a Mac. <br />It?ll just put Parallels out of business.<br /><br />Microsoft's real reason for not wanting users to run Vista in a <br />?virtual machine? is they are worried that someone dishonest will <br />buy one copy of Vista and install it on multiple Macs via ?virtual <br />machine? software. <br /><br />If it's a "virtual machine" there is no way for Microsoft's "Genuine <br />Advantage" System to tell if a license is running on "multiple" <br />pieces of hardware, probably because the "Windows OS" would <br />think multiple "virtual machines" are the same piece of <br />hardware.<br /><br />Maybe Microsoft is seeing a Windows license getting ?the same? <br />updates downloaded multiple times. This would not be possible <br />if Windows XP/Vista were running on actual hardware.<br /><br />But to me that's not the consumer?s problem, just because some <br />are dishonest. Microsoft should just come up with another <br />solution for updating for those who are running Windows Vista <br />on a virtual machine.<br /><br />It?ll be interesting to see what happens in Vista?s next Service <br />Pack.

[Maccess]

Boot Camp not Virtualization

Technically speaking, Boot Camp isn't virtualization. BC is a dual boot utility.<br /><br />Parallels at <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.parallels.com" target="_newWindow">http://www.parallels.com</a> is virtualization.

[Art Kaye]

bootcamp won't drive Parallels out of business

booting windows via bootcamp is like booting any machine into windows - the bootcamp sw installs the necessary drivers to make a MacIntel machine into a WIntel machine. The advantage of virtualization is not needing to reboot. These are very different beasts, and bootcamp won't replace virtualization, and probably virtualization won't replace booting up the Wintel machine.

[BrandonEubanks]

Just to remind everyone

I don't think Microsoft is worried about money with macs selling <br />better for two reasons:<br /><br />1: Even with the recent boost in sales, Macs still don't reach <br />more than 10% market share at best.<br /><br />2: One of the largest shareholders in Apple is.....(pause for <br />dramatic effect)......Microsoft. This is due to a Cross Liscensing <br />agreement the two companies made in the late 90's where <br />Microsoft gained the rights to put MS Office on the mac, IE <br />became the standard browser (till 10.3/10.4 when Safari became <br />standard), Microsoft brought millions in Apple stock, both <br />gained the right to leverage the other's technology that had <br />been developed up to that point (to settle long running patent <br />disputes), and several other points but these are the main ones.<br /><br />So, I think that it has more to do with using the same liscense on <br />multiple virtual machines than competition between MS and <br />Apple because they sell their OS anyway but, it cost more to <br />support and OS and it someone is getting the same support on <br />multiple boxes it begins to cost MS money. If this is the root <br />reason for the differienation, I think the solution was a good <br />one. However, I see no other logical reason for the EULA-<br />virtualization distinction.<br /><br />Most definately the security bit they put out was complete BS.

[calcompcare]

Good conclusion, slight correction

MS sold its $50M of non-voting, Apple stock many years ago for <br />a big profit. As you said, the stock transaction was involved in <br />settlement of patent violations (involving Microsoft stealing <br />QuickTime code among others). Like an out of court settlement <br />of a law suit, the details of the transaction are sealed and have <br />never been fully disclosed. MS currently has no investment in <br />Apple.

[technewsjunkie]

MS does NOT "own" Apple or it's stock

They do do not "own" Apple, or thier stock.<br />This is a myth.<br /><br />There was a cross licensing deal that you mentioned, which also included QuickTime technology and an investment/endorsment of Apple. That's it. <br />MS's blessing of Apple in it's hour of need was mutually beneficial because MS makes a lots of money from Mac Office, more importantly, it was an effort by MS to keep the Antitrust lawyers off their back because Mac OS represented OS competition (although only Intel based OSes were "chosen" as competition in the Antitrust trial). Apple was a differnt company then with different management. Jobs set things right since then.

[Microsoft_Facts]

Pirating MS products in not illegal

IMO; A company that is a convicted monopolist, but has not paid a price or changed its practices, in turn is not deserving of any legal protection. I hereby declare all MS products are free to pirate. (I actually said something to this effect in the late 80's, it only becomes more relevant as time goes on.) And to this day, I've never paid a dime for any MS product...ever. These days, except to play a game or two anyone can do without MS products and be well off.

[Mister Winky]

Idiot

Yeah, and it's OK to kill "bad guys," steal cars from "rich people" and blow up headwuarters for "evil corporations."<br /><br />Do you really think the world works this way or are you simply trying to justify your illegal acts?<br /><br />-Mister Winky

[InklingBooks]

The WINE/Codeweavers Option

This is yet another reason to run Windows applications (such as <br />FrameMaker) under WINE/Codeweavers. It avoids all the security <br />issues of Windows and this absurdly high Windows tax.<br /><br />I'll pay $129 to upgrade to OS X Leopard for the vast majority of <br />my computing. There's no way I'll pay $400 to run an occasional <br />application or two in an inferior OS. For that WINE emulation is <br />more than good enough.

[shane--2008]

wow

if they count each virtualized instance as an install, that will <br />make...... hang on,..... carry the two......<br /><br />37 installs of Vista in the wild! woot!

[flhack]

Lose one, win one

Seems like an impulsive reaction of irritated giant - lose to Google and antitrust regulators (<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://news.com.com/Microsoft+agrees+to+change+Vista+desktop+search/2100-1012_3-6192065.html?tag=nefd.lede" target="_newWindow">http://news.com.com/Microsoft+agrees+to+change+Vista+desktop+search/2100-1012_3-6192065.html?tag=nefd.lede</a>), get even by reversing another community-suggested policy.

[beaverbutt]

I can't believe it either

it was very strange. plus all i have been hearing is that it takes up almost 3 times the memory (and xp was almost 2 times as mutch.