Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Windows, Linux & Others on the Mac' started by AtHomeBoy_2000, Oct 18, 2006.
at least from within a virtualization envirnment...
I also just read a article that stated for the most part Intel 's crapo GMA950 was only going to run vista in barebones mode meaning for the most part you want Vista and its features you will need a real GPU! HIp Hip Hooray! Microsoft & Intel are no longer bed buddys.
As annoying as it may be, it could only be expected.
No Mac OS X for PC = No Vista for Mac!!!
I hear faint cries of Touché!!!
for those who want to read the actual page this infor came from, check it out...
That just means no PPC emulation, doesn't it? I mean, it's not like you're emulating any hardware when you run Windows on a mac. Just as long as you don't emulate the hardware you'll be good, right?
This is brilliant. We'll see if they set the precident of suing people who purchase a legitimate copy of Vista and run it on their Mac.
just like microsoft to knife apple users by making it more expensive to use windows on a mac.
of course this is just in emulation or virtualization. so why not just use boot camp?
also, are they really going to check?
BootCamp is ok, but not the best solution for a lot of situations. For stuff I need windows for, it would be SO much easier to just boot up Windows in a virtual envirnment and go back and forth between that and OS X.
That just means you can't reuse the OS in virtualization if it's installed elsewhere, not that virtualization is "banned". For instance, say you buy Vista Home and install it using Boot Camp, you can't reuse the same license in Parallels.
I've reread it a few times. I got that feeling too, but it's not clearly worded to non-laywer eyes.
The way I read it is that you can't use the Home version in a Parallels (or VMWare, etc) at all, regardless of whether you have already used that copy before. It simply can't be installed. And it is not just limited to Mac - it is any virtualized environment, PC or Mac.
In the end, who really cares?
Actually, I'm going to revise my opinion. It pays to read the definitions. The following quote defines "licensed device" as being a physical hardware system which seems to me does not include virtual machines.
Since I'm a web developer, I'll have to make sure my apps work on Vista. I certainly won't be installing it as my main OS. If the Home version is not supposed to be used in virtualization, I'll have to get one of the more expensive versions.
Even worse, you can only reassign the license to a new device one time. And that applies to all versions not just Home; which makes buying a retail copy rather poor value.
I can't see that at all. You choose one device on which you install Vista - for example your MacBook. You can then install it once, and you can use it once at the same time.
At the moment, Parallels software cannot use a Bootcamp installation, so you cannot use one copy of Vista for both Bootcamp and Parallels legally. If Parallels finds a way to use a Vista Bootcamp installation, then you can use the same copy of Vista for Bootcamp and Parallels. You wouldn't be allowed to run both at the same time, but you can't do that anyway.
Yikes! Even for Ultimate the restrictions for use in a VM are u.g.l.y.
I understand the "why" but this seems a bit extreme, no? I wonder how/if they will enforce this...
See that mass 'whuffing' sound?
It's the sound of millions of people ignoring this license restriction.
You buy your Windows. You run it on one machine. End of story.
Good luck finding a judge who will rule against someone who paid full fee for their Windows license and is happily running it in a virtual machine.
I do think maybe it's to protect themselves against some sort of obscure legal threat, or to give them an excuse to pry into people's computers, or laying the groundwork for some sort of future world domination masterstroke.
I don't know about not running at all in a VM, but it's pretty easy for them to impose the restriction on DRM in a VM, if the video and audio drivers are not signed by MS don't play DRMed material. (essentially the "Trusted computing" stuff that was promised for Vista).
We'll see soon enough.
So something I'm curious about...
If you install it once, and that counts as use 1 of 2, then if you reinstall it after it screws up in a couple of months (and knowing microsoft, it will) does that count as strike 2?
With people that reinstall their stuff several times a year, and with windows it isn't difficult to get to where you need to do it often, how ticked are they going to be at having to buy extra licenses every year?
Could be a bright future with a little growth for OS X. Especially 10.5, as I've just got a gut feeling that at least one of their "top secret" features is going rock William's little world.
I don't know much about the WGA program, but my answer would be to get a crack off the internet, and keep the original disks and licence to wave at any audit comission.
(if they're stroppy, then keep one or both installs free, and reinstall with the valid install number, or keep a valid install disk image around)
I am contemplating getting a Macbook soon, as some programs for work only come in Windows, and I'm really not looking forwards to sorting out this *****.
Maybe Windows are trying to make PCs more like Macs used to be, in that you aren't expected (or allowed in this case) to make any significant upgrade over the life of the machine?
Bang goes another PC advantage - their 'upgradability'.
EDIT: What if you brought a PC without install disks? Some have a system restore partition, some don't. Some of Billy's multidinous minions have been generous about handing out codes on the phone if you ask nicely, others haven't. It's a mess.
Well I've run RC1 on my MacBook and it runs XP in full Aero mode with all the swooshy goodness. Certainly not the bare bones mode.
Is this another chapter in your I hate the GMA950 crusade?
Do us all a favour and back yourself up with quotes, otherwise stop spreading misinformation on this forum.
If you have been reading the PC press reports, Vista will have major new "piracy" prevention tools that XP did not. They will make the "Genuine Advantage" restirctions look like they were childsplay. If MS does not want you to install Vista more then once after the initial install, you won't be able to, period because according to the reports, parts of Vista (web browsing first, then other parts) will begin to shut down within one hour of Vista detecting any violation of the rules.
This two times install and your out, based on any hardware change the triggers the software, is going to be VERY much disliked by PC users who are always upgrading their machines with new hardware.
I would bet that MS is most afraid of what BootCamp will look like in OSX 10.5 since I will bet that BootCamp will not require you to re-boot to use Windows as it does now. I would not be surprised to find that it acts like a souped-up Parallels Desktop (which I use and like quite a lot). If Apple pulls this off, it will really give MS a run-for-its-money.
I am one of many, many engineers that I know that have moved to the Mac now that the Mac Pro has been released. The abilitty to run OSX, Windows XP, Linux and Solaris all on the same box at the same time is nothing short of amazing and provides a real incentive to move from buggy, virus_worm_spyware laden Windows once and for all.
In fact, if OSX becomes popular enough with engineers, I would not be surprised to find that those last few applications (CADD, Stress Analysis, etc.) that are not available for OSX will become so and there will be no need for virtualization except for software developers. In my case, I don't have any need to fun Vista in Parallels or BootCamp anyway, so I couldn't care less if MS tries to limit is use that way. I do understand that to software developers this poses a problem that will need to be addressed some how.
Lets hope that the new version of BootCamp that comes with OSX 10.5 rally gives MS something to worry about. It couldn't happen to nicer guys ;-)
So are they saying Vista has only been designed to use 2 CPUs max?
This is actually a change for the better in that XP Home is designed for only 1 processor (which can have two or more cores each) while XP Pro will currently take advantage of 2 CPUs (which can each have multiple cores). Only the serevr products are designed for more than 2 processors.
The predicted 8 core Mac Pro would still qualify as two processors.
The sad thing with this is that the only people that suffer are those that are genuine and buy retail copies.
No doubt the pirates and hackers will have a fully working Vista Ultimate without any of the activation stuff within a few weeks of it's final release.
So the people who use pirated software will continue to do so, whilst those legit users will be paying for it.