Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

FoxyKaye said:
Can I get an Amen? This is just M$ trying to frack with Mac switchers who still want to use Windows on their Macs. I don't know anyone who as ever read any M$ EULA in any great detail - but, if they start an urban legend that it's "illegal" to use Windows on a Mac, then people won't read the EULA and just believe M$ will somehow find out they're emulating Vista on their MacBook and shut off the installation remotely. Look at how much gobbledygook M$ has already put out about Vista and "activation", piracy, and other "security" measures.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.
Click to expand...


I presently use a copy of windows xp pro on my macbook, which actually came in a bundle pack from Dell for the computer in my office. I don't see how Vista will be any different, and if something went wrong with it on my computer, I'd hardly be distraught since OS X would be unharmed. What's Microsquat gonna do? Fry my Hard Drive? Since the vast majority of mac users will most likely be using Vista and Windoze of old as a second tier operating system, I and I'm sure many others fail to see the threat. But it's their product, and they ARE free to do what they wish with it, but I think that although this may be golden for MS on the business sector, I also agree with many here that anyone and everyone that makes,takes and remakes pirated Windows software will do so even faster, since no one likes to bloodlet their wallets.
 
I have a legit version of XP running in Parallels whilst I make the compete switch and then - why the hell would I but Vista anyway?

Ow yeah for the gadgets - of course - silly me!:rolleyes:
 
Maestro64 said:
Remember once someone sells you something they can not tell you how you can use it. That like you buying a car and in the purchase agreement they tell you your not allow to wreck the car. Grant it, they do not have to warranty it after you wreck it, but if you want to wreck it, that is up to you.
Click to expand...

Does it apply to purchased iTMS songs too? :rolleyes: :confused: ;)
 
just like the end of the roman empire

ms ist collapsing under its own weight. my god, they cant even get a decent os together after how many years? so, the marketing goons in redmond think that if they manage to stem piracy, that could make up for the losses to osx and linux they are sure to incurr. because lets just face the facts: vista in all its incarnations is not even worth half of what the asking prices are.....
 
rdrr said:
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.
Click to expand...

Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.

What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.

It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.

From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
 
rdrr said:
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

I know we jump all over MS for spreading FUD... We shouldn't do the same.
Click to expand...
Microsoft's "correction" is discussed further in the "update" on the article you linked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=159

The bottom line is that Vista Home Basic/Premium are not licensed for use in a VM. Ulitmate and Business editions are OK.

B
 
mahonmeister said:
Oh I found it: CrossOver Mac. Not sure if it will support Vista though.
Click to expand...

Seeing as Crossover doesn't require MS-Windows, it doesn't "support" any version thereof. It emulates Windows APIs.
 
kresh said:
What if Microsoft claims that the Mac firmware (which is software on a chip) is EFI and Apple is emulating BIOS and thus Windows is running in an emulated environment.

Don't underestimate the power of the Darkside!

edit: Unless with Vista the Mac can use the native EFI, uhm... Maybe the Darkside is not all that :)
Click to expand...

EFI is not an emulation of bios.
 
Great news!

This is great news!

So more and more people will finally realise that running Mac OS X only is far, far, far cheaper, more stabile and less troublesome.

Way to go Microsoft, we love you! Please make Business Edition three times more expensive too, make software registration five time more complicated and annoying as hell, include more ironcurtain restrictions, so people can buy more and more Macs.
 
Ktulu said:
...

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:

Very confused about how this affects anyone?
Click to expand...

Home/Office desktop and laptop
 
The real legal ramifications of MS licensing agreement.

Regardless if you believe that you can install Vista Home under VMWare or Parallels, the real legal problem is MS has put VMWare and Parallels under legal notice that they may not write their software to allow the operation of Vista Home under their products, else they will be sued for contributory infringement.

So, technical theory aside, if MS has the legal right to restrict such behavior, there will be no way VMWare or Parallels will produce such software, otherwise MS will sue them out of existence.
 
Win Vista Activation looks like a nightmare in general...

I first read all this stuff on The Register - sounds like I'll be sticking with XP, even on my PC.

The fact that you can only install Vista twice is enough to annoy me.
 
rdrr said:
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

I know we jump all over MS for spreading FUD... We shouldn't do the same.
Click to expand...

Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period. See:

ZDNet said:
Update 18-Oct: Microsoft has issued yet another "clarification." They say you really can't legally run Vista home versions in a VM. I say their agreement is incomprehensible and their policy is stupid and short-sighted. Details here.
Click to expand...

So ... FCT* then?



(* Fear, Certainty, and Truth, as opposed to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)
 
:-o

OMG, ROTFL!!!

This is HILARIOUS! We should send this to all our so-called "friends" who use Windows.

AnyKey said:
Well then...if this is the case, who needs XP or Vista? I may just install Windows RG on my macbook pro when I get it. And yes...we educated Windows RG users use only the best hardware. I'll be waiting for C2D too. :)

For me, it's either Mac OS Windows RG. :rolleyes:

For a preview of Windows RG: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

:D ;)
Click to expand...
 
countach said:
EFI is not an emulation of bios.
Click to expand...

Correct. EFI and BIOS are different animals. MacBooks and Mac Pros don't include BIOS. Windows requires BIOS (unless Vista has changed back to supporting EFI). Boot Camp EMULATES BIOS on top of EFI.

That was the point. Might hit the "or otherwise emulated" parenthetical in the EULA. Someone will need to talk with a lawyer on that one.

BTW: What Microsoft SAYS about the EULA is pretty much meaningless. The only things that will be held up in court are, in rapidly-descending order of relevance:

1. The EULA
2. Official pronouncements declaring intent of EULA (which might go to prove willful deception; I suspect the EULA contains a clause that any external pronouncements can not change or limit the content of the agreement, blah blah blah).
3. WAY down from the last, well-documented statements from a management-level individual at the company promising that the reading of the EULA is incorrect.

So, if a straight reading of the EULA might be interpreted to mean it can not be run on a virtual machine or under emulation of any sort, then thats the truth, no matter how much the Borg doth protest.
 
how is this any different than apple's end user-license agreement for mac os x? here is section 2A:

This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computer at the same time.
Click to expand...

the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
Click to expand...

microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.
 
prostuff1 said:
I know that Bootcamp is not virtualization. What i am saying is that to run the OS in Bootcamp and a copy in parallels (legally) you would need to by the business or premium edition (or whatever they are called).
Click to expand...

I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.

I am not sure who is interpreting this EULA correctly and this thread sure does not need my uninformed opinion. But, if a single instance of a retail version of Vista cannot be installed anyway you like, that is a crock. With that being said, I have certainly not found a single 'scaled down' MS offering that was worth having, especially in a business environment.

It is part of my job responsibilities to evaluate and implement new technology. I am not even looking at Vista right now. Not that I like XP. MS is making my life very difficult.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back