No Vista Home on Macs, Microsoft Says

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by outlandos, Jun 22, 2007.

  1. outlandos macrumors regular

    Jun 7, 2007
  2. yetanotherdave macrumors 68000


    Apr 27, 2007
    Bristol, England
    Looks like a licensing thing, not a technical restriction. It looks like you'll be able to do it, you'll just be breaking the license agreement.
  3. reflex macrumors 6502a

    May 19, 2002
    Vista Business might be an alternative (not quite as expensive as Ultimate). And get the OEM version if you can.

    I assume the Vista drivers for the SR MBP's aren't as good as they could be yet (reading posts on these forums).
  4. CADer macrumors 6502


    Apr 24, 2007
    Have you used Vista? If you have you will see that everything will run faster on XP, that is unless you have a x64 program and have x64 Vista, but then you could just get XP Pro x64 and it would run faster.
  5. zioxide macrumors 603


    Dec 11, 2006
    **** microsoft and their nazi licensing and versions of vista. vista sucks anyways.

    use xp.
  6. scaredpoet macrumors 604


    Apr 6, 2007
    There's a reason why people like me are switching to Mac entirely. If I'm ever forced to run WIndows on Apple hardware, it will be XP.

    I bought Vista Ultimate, upgraded my windows machine, and was deeply disappointed. It works all right, but has many quirks, the computer is running slower now, and if I had to do it all over again, I wouldn't.
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    No, no, no.... even when criticizing MS, please don't spread FUD. Bootcamp is NOT A VIRTUALIZATION SOLUTION.

    The licensing limitation applies to Parallels and VMWare. It does not apply to Bootcamp.
  8. dimme macrumors 65816

    Feb 14, 2007
    SF, CA
    Boot Camp OK?

    It does not say anything about boot camp so I guess it is OK with book camp.
  9. OllyW Moderator


    Staff Member

    Oct 11, 2005
    The Black Country, England
    No, only if you want to run it under virtualisation on a Mac.

    You can't run it on Parallels but there is nothing to stop you loading it using Bootcamp.
  10. thworple macrumors 6502


    Oct 20, 2005
    Sussex, England
    No this doesn't affect installations of Vista Home under Bootcamp. It you look at the article, it states "to use the operating system under virtualization on the Mac platform." Bootcamp is not 'virtualization', its full installation on a partition or separate hard drive. What Microsoft won't allow you to do is run Vista Home editions under applications such as Parallels which allows you to run Windows within a virtual environment in OS X.

    Edit: several people beat me to it - dang!
  11. Dane D. macrumors 6502a

    Apr 16, 2004
    Can someone explain what the difference is between running Windows in Bootcamp and VM, seems to me you are still running Windows. Not that I would buy and install Windows but it does seem a little odd to me. I little education for myself so I can follow these threads and understand what people are experiencing.:confused:
  12. 2ndPath macrumors 6502

    Feb 21, 2006
    When you are running Windows using Boot Camp, you are running windows on your mac (you cannot really run it in Boot Camp, because Boot Camp is basically a partitioning tool and a set of drivers). If you use virtualisation solutions like VMWare or Parallels you are running Windows in a virtual machine that is simulated on top of OS X and not directly on the Mac hardware. I hope this explanation was understandable.

    Don't ask me why it should make a difference for MS if Windows is run on a real or a virtual machine as long as a license is paid, but apparently they have the right to restrict this.
  13. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    When you buy a software license, you are buying the right to use a certain piece of software in a certain way. You don't have some sort of inherent unlimited right to use any software any way you wish, which is limited by licenses. Rather, you are *granted* specific privileges by your licenses. Software licenses can address...

    - where you use software (e.g. a university can purchase licenses to use the software on their sites but not necessarily at your home)

    - when you use software (licenses can expire)

    - how you use software (for instance, some licenses prohibit commercial usage of the software under that license, such as many academic licenses)

    This has been true essentially as long as software has existed.

    The Vista limitation falls into the last category. The difference between Parallels and Bootcamp is that, in the latter case, Vista runs directly on hardware that is compliant with its requirements -- all Bootcamp does is help you partition your drive to install Vista and provide drivers for Vista. In the former case, Vista doesn't have direct access to the hardware, per se. Rather, it interfaces with a virtual equivalent of the hardware set that's provided by the host OS (e.g. OS X) and the virtualization software / technology (Parallels in conjunction with Intel's virtualization tech).

    Is there some fundamental technological reason that the home Vista cannot run in the virtual environment? Of course not. Is there any technological reason why OS X cannot run on at least some Windows PCs? Of course not. But Microsoft and Apple, respectively, do not grant you that license with tha product. You can complain to them and lobby them to change the stance (which they might, as MS almost did in this case), and you can work with the legal system if this is a violation of rights accorded you elsewhere, but unless that's the case, you don't have any fundamental right to use the software any way you want. Rather, you have a right to run Vista directly on the hardware, unless you buy the more expensive versions, because that's the right that MS is selling you.
  14. outlandos thread starter macrumors regular

    Jun 7, 2007
    That's very clear, thanks!

    And as many people advice to go XP over Vista I guess I'll order Windows XP Pro OEM tonight.
  15. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus


    Jan 9, 2004
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    Especially if you end up using something like Parallels' coherence mode, it seems like a good choice, as the only benefit Vista would give you there is the slightly better looking windows. ;) At some point, games are going to start requiring the version of DirectX in Vista, but you probably have a while. If you're doing non-game things, I suspect you'll have far less trouble with XP than Vista right now.
  16. poke4christ macrumors member

    Jun 6, 2007
    XP64 is a POS. I used it for a while and it sucked. First off, I never noticed a significant speed increase. Second, There were MANY drivers that didn't work with it. Finally, MS announced they wouldn't be providing updates for it because of Vista. So basicly, it's not getting any better.

    Once my MBP comes in, I'm gonna make that my main computer and dual boot my desktop with XP and Ubuntu. Then, I'm just going to leave in Ubuntu most of the time (use XP when I need it). Sorry MS, you've lost me. I'll see ya when you either open up windows or make a unix/linux based OS (trust me, it's gonna happen).
  17. gkarris macrumors 604


    Dec 31, 2004
    "No escape from Reality..."
    Point-Of-Sale?? :p

Share This Page