- Related Stories
-
Week in review: Apple invites Windows users to Safari
June 15, 2007 -
Week in review: Cell phone hang-up
June 8, 2007 -
Week in review: Tech titan togetherness
June 1, 2007
On the eve of making the announcement, however, the company changed its mind and now doesn't want to talk about it.
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.
The technology, which allows multiple operating systems to run simultaneously on one computer, has become particularly important for Mac users who want to run Windows programs side by side with the Mac OS.
The company had said in interviews that it was still concerned about the security risks that the change might introduce but that it was going to make the change and leave the choice up to consumers.
Analysts had questioned the tie between security and the licensing restriction. The security risks apply to all versions of Vista. Similar risks might even be present if someone were running another operating system in a virtual machine, whether that is Linux or Windows XP, properly licensed in all its major versions to run inside a virtual machine.
Given all the feedback Microsoft had been getting, and apparently was keen to accommodate, it's not clear what prompted the last minute flip-flop. Even Microsoft's partners have gotten little explanation.
As part of its planned announcement, Microsoft had spoken with Parallels, securing a quote from one of its executives praising the deal. Like the rest of the industry, virtualization specialist Parallels was left scratching its head over the about-face.
"We haven't received any more information either," said Benjamin Rudolph, Parallels' director of corporate communications. "It's a little odd."
However, CNET News.com readers had their own ideas what prompted the flip-flop.
"Microsoft's real reason for not wanting users to run Vista in a 'virtual machine' is they are worried that someone dishonest will buy one copy of Vista and install it on multiple Macs via 'virtual machine software,'" wrote one reader to the News.com's TalkBack forum.
Meanwhile, in an effort to assuage Google and head off a further antitrust battle with U.S. regulators, Microsoft agreed to make changes to the desktop search feature in Vista. In a filing made jointly with the Justice Department, Microsoft said it would change the search feature as part of the first service pack to Vista.
Under the agreement, Microsoft will create a mechanism whereby computer makers and individuals will be able to choose a default desktop search program, much as they can choose a rival browser or media player, even though those technologies are built into Windows.
Yahoo CEO googled
After six years on the job, Yahoo Chief Executive Terry Semel stepped down and handed the reins of the struggling search company to co-founder Jerry Yang. The shakeup came nearly one week after a somewhat contentious shareholder meeting in which stockholders criticized Semel's pay in light of the company's lackluster stock price and failure to mount any serious challenge to Google on search advertising.
See more CNET content tagged:
virtual machine, virtualization, Terry Semel, Week in review, Microsoft Windows Vista
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
you are really serious about software you should build your own
hardware" someone said. Nuff said.
- Forced "Upgrade" == Greed
- by phobet July 12, 2007 12:15 AM PDT
- I think the subject says it all. Micro$oft probably considered how they can divert the river of virtualization, reep (sp?) the monetary benefits, with the minimum of effort on their part.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(16 Comments)Sorta like how the newest games published by them "require" Windows Vista, for no technical reason I can fathom...
Micro$oft: If Vista can't make it on its own merits, why bother?