backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 45 comment(s) - last by rykerabel.. on Feb 5 at 9:50 AM

Virtual Windows Vista users will have to pay for the high-end OS

With the release of Windows Vista on Tuesday, the final end-user licensing agreement (EULA) is reaching the eyes of the masses – for those who actually care to read through it instead of blindly clicking “next.”

One particular clause found in specific versions of Windows Vista is catching the attention of many Mac users, particularly those using Parallels Desktop software, which allows Mac users to run the new Windows OS on their systems. The Parallels Virtualization blog found that only the higher-end versions of Vista permit the use of virtualization software.

The EULA for Vista Home Basic and Home Premium Editions is quite clear in its stance on virtualization:

“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”

On the other hand, the EULA for Vista Business and Ultimate Editions allows virtualization, but with some boundaries:

“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.”

For most Wintel PC users, the limitations set forth in the EULA for the Home versions of Windows Vista are meaningless. But for Mac and Linux users, the restriction to the top tier Windows Vista SKUs means a greater investment is required to virtually run the new OS. Microsoft believes that the main users of virtualization technology are businesses who can afford the added cost.

“Most customers using this technology are primarily business users addressing application compatibility needs, or technology enthusiasts,” said a Microsoft spokesperson to MacCentral. “So virtualization will be supported in Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate and Vista Business SKUs. Home users have rarely requested virtualization and so it will not be supported in Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium SKUs.”

Update 2/1/2007: Contrary to what we heard from Microsoft spokespeople, apparently the interpretation of the EULA posted above doesn’t present the whole picture of the license. As detailed in the Windows Server Division Weblog, the limitations to the Vista Home editions stems from restrictions to multiple installations. The mere fact that the Business and Ultimate Editions of Vista allow for greater freedom with the number of installations is the reason behind the permission for use in virtualization technologies. Microsoft has yet to offer official clarification on the subject at this time, but that’s the deal with the EULA as we understand it.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

One more reason...
By Micronite on 2/1/2007 6:55:23 PM , Rating: 2
The more things I learn about Vista, the more I'm convinced that I'm not going to be happy without the Ultimate version.

1) I simply must have Remote Desktop so I can easily fix any relative's computer without having to tell them where to click.
2) I don't know if I'll want to use Virtualization, but it is really enticing. I don't want to nerf myself there.
3) Previous Versions should make my life easier when my wife needs to go back to an old version of something.
4) I want parental controls since my kids use the computer, too.
5) I'm not hooked up to my 1080p LCD yet, but I can and probably would if I had the Media Center capability.

So I guess that about sums it up for me... Vista Ultimate or disappointment.




RE: One more reason...
By JonMooring on 2/1/2007 7:46:11 PM , Rating: 1
Media Center is included in the Home Premium edition.


RE: One more reason...
By smitty3268 on 2/1/2007 7:52:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, but everything else listed is only available in Business/Ultimate, which means he needs Ultimate to get the Media Center as well.


RE: One more reason...
By Proton on 2/1/2007 8:27:11 PM , Rating: 2
Remote Assistance can be used for your fixing relative's computer scenario. That is in Home Premium version.
I installed Vista in a Virtual machine with Home Premium. It warns that it is not supported, but it lets you install and use it.
Just like on Windows XP Home, not supported but works just fine.
Parental controls are in the Media Center application so you can at least control what can be watched. (I haven't tried out this feature yet, since I don't need it.)


RE: One more reason...
By smitty3268 on 2/1/2007 8:53:45 PM , Rating: 2
The last I heard, Remote Desktop was NOT included in Home Premium, only in Business/Enterprise/Ultimate versions. Has this changed?


RE: One more reason...
By AndreasM on 2/1/2007 9:00:48 PM , Rating: 2
Remote Assistance != Remote Desktop


RE: One more reason...
By Nekrik on 2/1/2007 9:06:31 PM , Rating: 2
That hasn't changed, but there are still methods to offer assistance to remote users (such as remote assistance), and I think there's a few new tools but I haven't checked them out yet.


RE: One more reason...
By JCheng on 2/2/2007 3:47:01 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.copilot.com is just awesome--as long as the computer you're trying to fix is connected to the Internet you could probably talk a monkey through getting the remote end set up. Firewalls/NATs are a non-issue as all traffic can be reflected through their server (if necessary).

Works like a charm on Vista, I spent an hour on it last weekend removing a corrupted copy of McAfee AV from my brother-in-law's laptop.


RE: One more reason...
By borowki on 2/1/2007 9:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding is that the Remote Desktop client is included, but not the server. So someone running the Home edition can terminal into a computer running Business editio but not vice-versa.

On a completely different note, Microsoft provides a Remote Desktop client for OSX as well.


RE: One more reason...
By sprockkets on 2/2/2007 1:30:20 AM , Rating: 2
There's always tight vnc, and works on anything, period, no need for higher up versions of windows to get remote desktop. Whether it runs on vista...


RE: One more reason...
By scorp508 on 2/2/2007 12:00:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
1) I simply must have Remote Desktop so I can easily fix any relative's computer without having to tell them where to click.


Why do you feel like you personally need Vista Ultimate to do that? All you need is the RD Client, not the server. You can do that with XP if you feel like it. And here is the 6.0 update for the RD Client.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925876


Business Edition
By smitty3268 on 2/1/2007 5:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
So what about the business edition? You don't actually mention it one way or the other.




RE: Business Edition
By smitty3268 on 2/1/2007 5:37:55 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe they mean business/enterprise editions when they say enterprise? If so, I don't think that's so bad. Of course, I bet most people simply ignore the EULA - I doubt there is any code that stops you from using the other versions in a vm.


RE: Business Edition
By borowki on 2/1/2007 6:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
You can with the business edition.


RE: Business Edition
By S3anister on 2/1/2007 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know you can't, and the ENTERPRISE edition, IS different from the BUSINESS edition.

Vista Enterprise is available only to Microsoft's Software Assurance (SA) customers via volume licensing.


RE: Business Edition
By DEredita on 2/1/2007 7:15:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'll contact microsoft rep tomorrow so that I can get a solid answer on this. Where I am at, we have a huge Mac user base, and there has been a huge interest in Parallels. I'll post what I find out tomorrow.


RE: Business Edition
By pandacomp on 2/1/2007 7:19:09 PM , Rating: 2
According to the Business EULA (which you can access online) it allows virtualization.


RE: Business Edition
By borowki on 2/1/2007 9:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Here's the link:

http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/W...

I had looked it up prior since I use Parallels on the Mac.


RE: Business Edition
By S3anister on 2/2/2007 12:00:45 AM , Rating: 2
that's cool, less for people to pay if they really want VM, but... if they go business then they don't get MCE D:


.
By semo on 2/1/2007 7:41:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Microsoft believes that the main users of virtualization technology are businesses who can afford the added cost.
it's probably just me but that sounds a bit too capitalistic to me. i understand this as "why allow home users to do use this technology when we can get away with charging businesses more for it".

what's the real reason for disallowing the use of virtualization in some versions?




RE: .
By AndreasM on 2/1/2007 9:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
Greed != Capitalism


RE: .
By TomZ on 2/2/2007 5:56:57 PM , Rating: 2
Some people would argue that greed is good, since it is the drive that makes capitalism work. In other words, the incentive for a person or company to work hard and smart to make themselves successful is that they will enrich themselves.


RE: .
By Nekrik on 2/1/2007 9:04:45 PM , Rating: 2
Support has to be given, which means testing and development effort, add another OS and it can mean a pretty significant cost in these areas. They're not preventing it, which they could do, they're just not going to help someone if they have issues outside the specific realm they offer support for.


RE: .
By bottle23 on 2/2/2007 11:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
what's the real reason for disallowing the use of virtualization in some versions?


Isn't it obvious by their response? Its about money.

They're saying, because a certain group of customers aren't gonna pay extra, they don't deserve Virtualisation.

While this other group can and will, deserve Virtualisation.

It isn't about capitalism. Its about greed. Plain and simple. Have a think about it with the context of harsher "anti-piracy" measures...They're trying to maximise their profits with Vista.

This is one of those cases where technology doesn't dictate the limitation, but economics.


RE: .
By semo on 2/2/2007 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
many argue that the anti-piracy (drm and what not) measures m$ has taken is because (in overly simplified terms) the mpaa/hollywood/whoever made them. you can also say that it takes 2 to tango and argue that m$ could have stepped up for the small guy and made things different (but individuals is not where the money's at).


RE: .
By Snuffalufagus on 2/2/2007 9:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
While I really can't agree with your reasoning as to why it isn't supported in the home version, I find your explanation of greed fricking hilarious.

It's like that time I wanted to buy some RAM for my PC, they had a 512MB stick for $75, but I wanted to get a 1GB stick, and those greedy bastards wanted to charge $120 for it. Those bastards, just cause I wasn't going to pay extra, I wasn't going to get as much as the people who did pay more, so it's like they deserved the extra memory locations, but I didn't. GREED, plain and simple. Charging more more for more functionality (maybe they could make it up by undercharging and selling in greater volume :)).

I can't really think of a scenario where the average home user would need to use virtualization. If you want to use it to experiment with other OSes, run Linux, 2000, 95, QNX, BSD, whatever, that's a little outside of the realm of a home user. And on the support side, I can imagine the nightmare of the call where the 40 year old soccer mom who calls up trying to get that virtualized environment up and running.


Support
By hadifa on 2/1/2007 5:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
I guess this is more about support than anything. They are saying we do not support Virtualization for all win versions so if you have a problem with the basic and premium versions you cannot contact MS and ask for help.

If you have the ultimate or enterprise then you can expect a higher level of support but do not expect help when you can not play games or having problem running some DRM content.





RE: Support
By bnme on 2/1/2007 6:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
Microsoft is usually the last thing you call anyways if you run into a problem. For most users, you'd probably call the virtualization software maker first, then the 3rd party software maker, then possibly the OEM pre-buit manufacturer.

At this moment, anyways, the "games" and DRM'ed "media content" you'd be using in your VM isn't that applicable, since most drivers to even be able to use those stuff suck in VM's.


A VM is considered a second computer
By TheBaker on 2/1/2007 7:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
That's all this is really about. We've known that the EULA said you could only put Vista on one box. All this VM stuff means is you have to buy a separate copy in order to put that copy on a VM. You can't put it on your desktop, then put the same copy on your Mac, just like you can't put it on your desktop and laptop.




By borowki on 2/1/2007 9:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's what some people hoped Microsoft means. Alas it isn't the case. A Microsoft spokesperson has plainly said that you cannot use Home Basic/Premium in a virtual machine, period.


By sxr7171 on 2/1/2007 11:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you could get DRM media to play on a VM what are the chances that you could more easily get access to unprotected streams? Is this possibly a hole in their new insanely paranoid OS? Does anyone have anything to say about that? They surely see some weakness there or they wouldn't be begging you not to play DRM media on Vista on a virtual machine.




By sxr7171 on 2/1/2007 11:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
By the way I am not pro-stealing. But I am anti obtrusive DRM. I own all my music since I am an audiophile. I really think all this DRM and the implications it has on keeping hardware well-documented and open as well the performance implications it has are way too much for the comsumer to have to put up with. There just really has to come a time when these record companies and studios just realize that selling their product at a reasonable price would just end up being a more fruit use of resources and ultimately more profitable. The sooner some guy defeats the ultra protective paranoid DRM system in Vista the sooner we hit the next milestone in these people attaining that realization.


Clarification
By fk49 on 2/1/2007 6:53:38 PM , Rating: 1
Since this appears in the EULA, does it mean it's simply a legal restriction and not a software one? As in a user could still virtualize with Home Premium if they accepted the risk of a lawsuit?




RE: Clarification
By umerok on 2/2/2007 1:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
Good question. I would assume so, since the OS technically couldn't know whether it was being installed in a VM environment or an actual computer. So, it should still be possible, just not legal (something many of us are probably used to by now).


Dailytech is now illiterate ?
By robotskip on 2/1/07, Rating: -1
By AndreasM on 2/1/2007 9:03:29 PM , Rating: 2
Late != Illiterate


Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By SunAngel on 2/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By SunAngel on 2/1/07, Rating: -1
RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By S3anister on 2/1/2007 6:39:45 PM , Rating: 2
i seriously wonder how people do that.


RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By alifbaa on 2/1/2007 7:48:40 PM , Rating: 2
Knowing Sony, it could well be viral marketing.


RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By rtrski on 2/1/2007 9:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the whole idea of viral marketing was for someone who sounded like a 'smart' member of the community to shill something so you, lemming-like, would start to go along with it.

But any moron who can't tell which article he's posting on doesn't give me much confidence they know squat...

In other words: I agree with you, it's probably Sony marketing. The same braintrust that came up with the rootkit, etc... :)


RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By Araemo on 2/2/2007 8:38:06 AM , Rating: 2
What you're describing would be more accurately astroturfing than viral marketing.

Viral marketing is to put out a site that is genuinely cool enough for whatever reason that people you aren't paying pass around the URL to their friends. Somewhat like a virus. ;)

Astroturfing is paying people to generate fake 'grassroots' support for a product/movement, which would be pretty close to what you describe.

Just remember that these shills are just like you, but they have roots and fronds, because they are a plant: http://www.penny-arcade.com/2006/10/02#1159922340


By Spivonious on 2/2/2007 9:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
fake grassroots = astroturf

that's hilarious!


RE: Blu-Ray beating HD-DVD in sales 2 to 1
By S3anister on 2/2/07, Rating: -1
By rykerabel on 2/5/2007 9:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
The software used here at dailytech sometimes does that to posts...
It has done it to me at least 7 different times over the past few years.
Very rare, but it does happen.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki