Furthermore, I keep a copy of Windows running on VMWare, mostly for games, but also for testing, so the no-VM clause in the cheaper versions is a real pain as well.
I'm going to the bookstore and get a linux OS and run it on the backup and get up to speed. F Microsoft.
don't worry... it'll be circumvented by smarter programmers than the clowns at MS.
That's what I'm wondering too. If I upgrade my computer, and reinstall Vista, will that count against the transfer limit?
Disclaimer: I am a proud Mac user, but I work with Windows XP at the office.
It seems as though Vista is getting increasingly restrictive to the "low-end" users, and more complicated overall in terms of choice versus price point. Why should I have to get power locks and power windows just because I want air conditioning and automatic transmission? Why not offer a standard package with all features for home use, a family pack of the same version, and a business upgrade package that only larger networks would need?
The VM part is to make sure businesses buy the more expensive versions, even where the cheaper ones would do. Lots of businesses rely on VMs to test software and configurations before allowing them into a production environment.
It's hard for me to say this, but Apple must be jumping up and down with glee. I know more than one person who are fed up with Microsoft and are switching to either Linux if they have know-how or to Mac.
Not to mention DR.
Right now VMware is THE hottest thing in IT. I sell it by the boat load.
I help with a 20,000 node network. This just gave the open source advocates in my department a HUGE boost.
I just decided that my next workstation will be a Mac. This is fscking rediculous. Macs for my personal machines, Linux for my servers. I'm absolutely sick of Microsoft's Big Brother mentality.
Does MS consider Apple's Boot Camp to be a virtual machine?
I sense an Apple MacBook Pro in my future!
Thanks.
Apparently one is not allowed to buy a new computer according to MicroSoft.
Wow. Microsoft's legal and marketing guys must be getting paid under the table by some rich Linux guys. I couldn't think of a better way to disenfranchise their customers, giving them a strong motivation to find something else.
I am a computer professional and I am hard-pressed to understand any compelling reason for anyone to move from WinXP to Vista - other than strong-arm tactics from MS.
This is bad news for MS. I remember long ago when, as an early-on Mac owner, I first recognized that Apple was in trouble with it's Mac strategy. I was walking through a computer store looking at PCs and Macs and the software offerings for both as well as the interfaces. I thought to myself, "I can't think of a good reason to get a Mac - and I already own one!" My next thought was "Apple is in big trouble if I, someone who loves my Mac, can't think of a good reason to get another one."
I see this Vista thing the same way.
The more Billy messes with the average user, the more market share he's going to lose. He's about to lose me.
Screw 'em. I'll stick with XP. Anyhow my three current computers run just fine on XP but choke on Vista... which I have downloaded installed and tried out
This is ridiculous.
What about ugrade machines?
What about serial upgrades where over the course of the years EVERYTHING is swapped out but the case and then you swap the case.
If the OS was $4.99 perhaps. But when the OS costs more than the machine this makes no business sense.
This is what you have when an OS has a monopoloy.