Microsoft imposes Vista tax on Mac and Linux virtualization
By The Blorge Team
Computer users wanting to run Vista on Mac OS or Linux will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems using virtualization technology.*
The end-user license agreement for the cheaper versions of Vista (Home Basic and Home Premium) explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (eg a Mac pretending to be PCs):
“You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system,†the end user license agreement states.
However, the more expensive Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions, can be installed on a virtual machine. From the end user license agreement:
“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.â€
Microsoft says that it originally considered banning Vista on virtualization systems because of concerns it has about security. Apparently AMD and Intel have built virtualization hooks into their CPUS. While the aim of this was to allow virtualization to work better, Microsoft claims that it created a security flaw.
“We’re balancing security and customer choice,” a Microsoft spokesperson told Associated Press.
The Home Basic version of vista costs US$199, compared to US$299 for the Enterprise edition (the cheapest version of Vista for everyone else, compared to the cheapest version of Vista for Mac users). This means that Mac OS and Linux users are being slugged an extra $100 (let’s call it a tax) for simply wanting to run Vista on virtualization system.
It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, you’re not able to play or access content protected by Microsoft’s digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption won’t work.
Parallels Desktop for Mac is a hardware emulation virtualization software package that allows Mac users to install Vista on their systems. The head of marketing at Parallels, Ben Rudolph, is understandably upset by Microsoft’s licensing policy:
“To me, this strategy could hold back users who embrace cutting-edge technologies like virtualization, which means they won’t upgrade to Vista. This means that Microsoft has effectively lost an upgrade customer (in the case of Windows PCs) or an entirely new customer (for Mac and Linux users),†wrote Rudolph on Parallel’s official blog.
* Incidentally the Vista end-user license agreement does not forbid the installation of Vista using Apple’s Bootcamp. However, if Vista is installed using Bootcamp, you cannot run it concurrently with Mac OS. With Bootcamp, all you’ve got is a PC living in the body of your Mac - you can either use the PC or use the Mac, not both at the same time. In which case, what’s the point?
Related:
Entry was posted
on Saturday, February 24th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
under 
Print This Post
Read more entries by The Blorge Team.
February 24th, 2007
[...] Feb 24, 2007 in Virtualization Original from VISTA.BLORG.com [...]
February 24th, 2007
What about running a virtual Mac OS X instance in a window on my Vista machine? I would buy that, but it seems that Apple licensing does not allow it. Please view all sides of a story.
February 24th, 2007
“virtualization technology” becomes “vitalization software” about halfway through. Is that deliberate? Does it imply that Vista needs vitalizing? Or is it the result of computerized spell checking?
February 24th, 2007
Why put up with all this ridiculous “licensing” restrictions at all? The next time you read about “Free Software”, remember that the word “Free” is in reference to your freedom to do anything you want with the software, not the price.
February 25th, 2007
Microsoft is selling SOFTWARE, the device it’s installed on — HARD or
VIRTUAL — should be irrelevant.
It’s like Pepsi telling me I have to drink directly from their can, and
not from a glass.
February 25th, 2007
Microsoft is selling SOFTWARE, the device it’s installed on — HARD or VIRTUAL — should be irrelevant.
It’s like Pepsi telling me I have to drink directly from their can, and not from a glass.
February 25th, 2007
You have an error. In the right column the “ ” should have been “ ”.
February 25th, 2007
[...] Read more [...]
February 25th, 2007
[...] However, the more expensive Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions, can be installed on a virtual machine. From the end user license agreement: >>>>> [...]
February 25th, 2007
I suppose this means that Wine or CrossOver will see a rise in downloads once they are able to mimic Vista, if that should ever happen.
February 26th, 2007
Since implementing NX server in conjunction with the free NX client from nomachine.com we’re moving more towards Linux on the desktop rather than Windows. So, I guess from my perspective Microsoft can do pretty much whatever they want.
July 28th, 2007
[...] However, the more expensive Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions, can be installed on a virtual machine. From the end user license agreement: >>>>> [...]
October 6th, 2008
thanks.