Vista may not be allowed to run on a Mac

[Dont Hurt Me]

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.

Here you go and im not misinforming anyone,Im glad you love the $4 GMA950http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1925173,00.asp or http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20050805045323.html or http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1843945,00.asp You can spin GMA950 until you are blue in the face but it is what it is. A bottom class weak GPU that shouldnt be in any Mac after Apple busted on how crappy Integrated graphics were. It cant do many things such as vertix shaders, transform & lighting etc and is just terrible at 3d gaming.

 

[ClimbingTheLog]

what of VirtualPC?

Folks here are talking about Parallels and VMWare but what of Microsoft Virtual PC? This whole things smacks of abuse of monopoly power. Is the coffee on at DOJ?

And JFC, nobody is going to record video from a virtualized PC to get around DRM - it's lossy, sync is a bitch, and there are easier ways to do it.

 

[balamw]

And JFC, nobody is going to record video from a virtualized PC to get around DRM - it's lossy, sync is a bitch, and there are easier ways to do it.

Don't think screen captures, the point is that if the OS is running in a VM, the VM can be written in such as way as to allow access to bits of memory that they may not want you to have access to.

In a sense since the hardware is virtualized in software, the "hardware" becomes an easier target to attack.

The VPC angle may be interesting since the client is now free on Windows at least, they may have another "Vista virtual edition" that they sell bundled with VPC that may not include the DRM or other features they choose to restrict.

B

 

[Diavilo1]

To be completely honest this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They are basically screwing a section of potential buyers (us) who now will look for yet another alternative. I also can't seem to shake the feeling that Leopard is going to have that silver bullet for the *can't run windows apps* arguement. Time will tell.

 

[daveporter]

To be completely honest this doesn't make a lot of sense to me. They are basically screwing a section of potential buyers (us) who now will look for yet another alternative. I also can't seem to shake the feeling that Leopard is going to have that silver bullet for the *can't run windows apps* arguement. Time will tell.

That was my thoughts are well.

Those clever engineers are Apple can work wonders when they want (need) to.

Dave

 

[MRU]

A bottom class weak GPU that shouldnt be in any Mac after Apple busted on how crappy Integrated graphics were.

ignoring gaming and gpu arguments, but has Vista suddenly changed since RC2, because Aero works fine for me on a macbook ? and its not sluggish at all.

Why would they suddenly take aero out of the final release when they have it working so well as it is, just doesnt make sense.

 

[The General]

More restrictions from Microsoft? O RLY?

 

[Dont Hurt Me]

Microsoft may have changed this but what I read earlier is integrated graphics wont be able to run everything that Vista requires, Aero and all that windows crap, this could be hardware software or perhaps political since Microstink and Intel have parted ways. Anyways I could give a crap because Im waiting for the the next OSX I just wanted to post some articles about what has been printed about integrated graphics and Vista for the gma950 lovers

 

[MRU]

Anyways I could give a crap because Im waiting for the the next OSX

To be honest I've tried each of the public Beta's and the 2 RC's of Vista and i'm totally not impressed. Yes Aero looks alright, but it's still windows.

Other than checking the odd website is working alright, i never need to use windows. Give me 10.5 now apple

 

[drval]

"When did America become the "Homeland" We grew up calling it America."

At just about the same time that it actually stopped being America -- and that's why I'm in Canada now.

 

[bob5820]

I'm not seeing the logic here, why would MS want to prevent you from running Vista on a Mac, as long as it is a legal copy of Vista? MS doesn't sell PC's so why should they care what hardware you run on. Seems to me like they would just be shooting themselves in the foot, and loosing sales. You could make the argument that MS might believe that not being able to run Vista would hurt Apple, but that sounds kind of far fetched. I remember when Hyper Threading was coming out there were rumors that XP Home would not support it, but in the end that proved not to be the case. These licensing agreements are not always clear about what they really mean.

 

[balamw]

I remember when Hyper Threading was coming out there were rumors that XP Home would not support it, but in the end that proved not to be the case. These licensing agreements are not always clear about what they really mean.

In this case it seems pretty clear that they do not intend for the "cheap" versions of Windows Vista to be used in conjunction with Virtualization/Emulation. Only the Ultimate/Business versions will allow that in their newly revealed license.

In the case you mention MS decided to more clearly define what they meant by "one processor" to allow for HT and dual cores, despite the prior restrictions on Home versions.

It's quite likely that Vista Home (Basic or Premium) will still run on Boot Camp, just not Parallels. Of course the version of RC2 we're all playing with is Ultimate.

B

 

[jdechko]

I agree that Microsoft has nothing to lose and a lot to gain from allowing Macs to run Vista. We've had this discussion a million times that MS is a software company. As long as they get the sale, they could pretty much care less if you installed windows on a toilet. So I doubt that they'll prevent Vista from installing under Bootcamp at least. Virtualization is a different story as has been mentioned, as virtualization might allow for some back door access to the software.

The other thing is reinstallations of Vista. I don't think that will be much of a problem (taking one of the 2 machines). It'll be tied to the same hardware as it was before, and should recognize it as the same machine. Of course, there's the issue of hardware upgrades, but this was essentially the same thing that we saw in XP. You were able to activate XP on a fixed number of machines, and certain hardware changes (CPU & Mobo) forced the user to reactivate Windows, while things like GPU, RAM and HD upgrades didn't.

 

[PowerFullMac]

My mate says he runs Vista via Parralells...

Or dosent this apply to the Beta(s)?

 

[balamw]

My mate says he runs Vista via Parralells...

Or dosent this apply to the Beta(s)?

As I stated above the Release Candidates everyone is playing with install Vista Ultimate, which is not affected by this limitation...

B

 

[OllyW]

My mate says he runs Vista via Parralells...

Or dosent this apply to the Beta(s)?

You are allowed to install the Beta & Release Candidate versions of Vista on up to 10 PCs using the same product key, I think they wanted as many people to try them out as possible.

They are time limited test versions without the strict licensing rules of the finished version, though you still need to activate them.

 

[bob5820]

In this case it seems pretty clear that they do not intend for the "cheap" versions of Windows Vista to be used in conjunction with Virtualization/Emulation. Only the Ultimate/Business versions will allow that in their newly revealed license.

In the case you mention MS decided to more clearly define what they meant by "one processor" to allow for HT and dual cores, despite the prior restrictions on Home versions.

It's quite likely that Vista Home (Basic or Premium) will still run on Boot Camp, just not Parallels. Of course the version of RC2 we're all playing with is Ultimate.

B

You may be right. Then again until Vista actually ships the whole licence thing might just go through as many revisions as Vista's feature list has. I still do not see what MS hopes to gain by this restriction, but who knows what insanity is playing in Bill's mind.

 

[PowerFullMac]

But couldnt someone just get the last beta/relese candidate and just use that as it surely wouldnt be much differant to the final?

 

[jdechko]

But couldnt someone just get the last beta/relese candidate and just use that as it surely wouldnt be much differant to the final?

Probably not, as the betas/rcs would have expirations on the license and not function (or shut down features one at a time) similar to the way that XP operates if you don't authorize it within 30 days. Of course, there are probably illegal cracks around it, but if you're gonna go illegal, why crack the beta/rc?

 

[OllyW]

But couldnt someone just get the last beta/relese candidate and just use that as it surely wouldnt be much differant to the final?

RC1 is time limited and runs out on June 1st 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/preview.mspx

 

[2ms]

Great antitrust enforcement -- they havent changed at all!

It's amazing how they were officially declared a monopoly guilty of predatory practices in a court of law, and were required to stop the predatory practices, and yet noone has done anything at all to enforce any restrictions to change things. So the only hope is through new/redundant suits and other countries in the world. Disgusting