Microsoft allows Vista Home to be used on Virtual Machines

[CalMin]

Not sure if this is news here or not, but the previously ludicrous stance that Microsoft took about Vista and virtualization is changed.

From the article:

Microsoft on Monday changed its mind again, saying it will allow users to run Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium as guest operating systems on a virtual machine. The news is especially welcome for Mac users who want to run the latest Windows version without having to pay an arm and a leg. Until now, Mac users and others wanting to run Vista virtually have had to fork over for the most expensive Business and Ultimate versions.

Source: http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9854621-56.html

 

[Lixivial]

Yeah, there's a MacBytes article regarding the topic. If you find Microsoft's stance ludicrous, I would be interested to know your opinion on Apple's virtualisation stance.

 

[CalMin]

Yeah, there's a MacBytes article regarding the topic. If you find Microsoft's stance ludicrous, I would be interested to know your opinion on Apple's virtualisation stance.

Oh, come on. You know what I meant by ludicrous. Vista Ultimate was the only version which allowed virtualization. Not for any technical reason, it was just to gouge those that wanted to run VM's, or rather to deter VM use altogether.

If you choose to allow virtualization then allow it. If you don't, then don't - like Apple. Some half-way house where you allow it with the expensive version, but not with the cheaper version is just nonsense. Microsoft has realized this too. Help honest people stay honest, don't screw them just because you can.

As for OS virtualization, well, I'd love see to OS X VM's, but since Apple is a hardware company (even though they insist of thinking of themselves as a software company) it will never happen.

 

[Nermal]

Some half-way house where you allow it with the expensive version, but not with the cheaper version is just nonsense.

Are you aware that OS X Server (ie. the "expensive version") can be run in a VM?

 

[The Flashing Fi]

Oh, come on. You know what I meant by ludicrous. Vista Ultimate was the only version which allowed virtualization. Not for any technical reason, it was just to gouge those that wanted to run VM's, or rather to deter VM use altogether.

If you choose to allow virtualization then allow it. If you don't, then don't - like Apple. Some half-way house where you allow it with the expensive version, but not with the cheaper version is just nonsense. Microsoft has realized this too. Help honest people stay honest, don't screw them just because you can.

As for OS virtualization, well, I'd love see to OS X VM's, but since Apple is a hardware company (even though they insist of thinking of themselves as a software company) it will never happen.

Vista Ultimate was not the only version that could be virtualized. Vista Business could, and I believe Vista Enterprise could as well, but Vista Enterprise is intended for volume licenses.

 

[CalMin]

Are you aware that OS X Server (ie. the "expensive version") can be run in a VM?

Yes, but it's not the same thing. Server is not the 'expensive version' of OS X. Yes it costs more, but none of us a going to buy that version for desktop use or virtual use for that matter. It's a specialized version used for specialized purposes.

Vista Ultimate is a desktop OS and the only reason Microsoft had for only allowing that version to be used in a VM was money. They could have said only Windows Server can be virtualized and Vista Desktop editions cannot, but they did not. They allowed the most expensive desktop version to go on a VM, but not the cheaper version. They know this was petty, hence the rule changes.

As stated above, I wish Apple would let us do this too, but they fear that if Windows users could get their hands on OS X without buying a Mac, they might sell fewer Macs. They are in the business of selling Macs more than OS X.

Vista Ultimate was not the only version that could be virtualized. Vista Business could, and I believe Vista Enterprise could as well, but Vista Enterprise is intended for volume licenses.

True, but they all cost more than the home versions. At least, I can go to Best Buy tomorrow and pick up Vista Home basic and run it using Fusion legally now rather than paying the extra for features that I don't need for a higher version. Since Aero doesn't work in a VM (yet) Vista Basic will do nicely.