Microsoft slugs Mac users with Vista tax

Tech.Blorge.com ^ | 2/7/2007 | John Pospisil

[Swordmaker]

Updated 8 Feb 07: Mac users wanting to run Vista on their Macintosh will have to buy an expensive version of Vista if they want to legally install it on their systems using virtualization technology.*

It appears Microsoft doesn’t want to make life easy for Mac users

The end-user license agreement for the cheaper versions of Vista (Home Basic and Home Premium) explicitly forbids the use of those versions on virtual machines (ie Macs pretending to be PCs):

“You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system,” the end user license agreement states.

However, the more expensive Vista Enterprise and Ultimate Editions, can be installed on a virtual machine. From the end user license agreement:

“You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.”

The Home Basic version of vista costs US$199, compared to US$299 for the Enterprise edition (the cheapest version of Vista for everyone else, compared to the cheapest version of Vista for Mac users). This means that Mac users are being slugged an extra $100 (let’s call it a tax) for simply being Mac users.

It also seems that even if you do buy and install the more expensive version of Vista on your Mac, you’re not able to play or access content protected by Microsoft’s digital rights management system, for fear that the full volume disk encryption won’t work.

Parallels Desktop for Mac is a hardware emulation vitalization software package that allows Mac users to install Vista on their systems. The head of marketing at Parallels, Ben Rudolph, is understandably upset by Microsoft’s licensing policy:

To me, this strategy could hold back users who embrace cutting-edge technologies like vitalization, which means they won’t upgrade to Vista. This means that Microsoft has effectively lost an upgrade customer (in the case of Windows PCs) or an entirely new customer (for Mac and Linux users),” wrote Rudolph on Parallel’s official blog.

With Microsoft being tardy about a new version of Mac Office (apparently it’s coming in later this year), and the feud between Gates and Jobs intensifying in recent weeks, Mac users could be forgiven for thinking that Microsoft is going out of its way to make life difficult.

* Update/clarification - the Vista end-user license agreement does not forbid the installation of Vista using Apple’s Bootcamp. However, if Vista is installed using Bootcamp, you cannot run it concurrently with Mac OS. With Bootcamp, all you’ve got is a PC living in the body of your Mac - you can either use the PC or use the Mac, not both at the same time. In which case, what’s the point?

[Terpfen]

The big deal is that Microsoft offers virtualization software.

[Still Thinking]

Similarly, virtualization isn't yet something most casual or home users run. Those who do want or need that technology are expected to "step up" to a more advanced version - those capabilities are the reason they have different levels of the OS at different price points. Sometime this year I'm looking to deploy a server running several virtual machines, none of which need to do anything very fancy. OSX and Linux aren't options, so it's a case of MS getting to charge me an extra $100 per VM because the Vista version that runs in a VM costs an extra $100 over the version that doesn't (or isn't licensed to).*

I would accept that argument with respoect to hosting virtual sessions, but running an OS or app in a virtual machine is no different from the code's point of view that running directly on hardware, so this seems like an artificial distinction on MS's part. If they want to build their lower end OS's without the ability to virtualize machines, that would be a valid marketing choice, but what hardware I run something on (real or virtual) is none of their business.

[Still Thinking]

Now I wouldn't object if MS said "Running under virtualization is not supported for the low end edition, and you won't get tech support", either becasue they were trying to herd you to the more expensive version or because they didn't include projected costs of tech support of VM use in the lower price point.

[ThePythonicCow]

No, this is not stupid.

Intel Macs running OS X can also run Windows in emulation. You can either run Windows on the raw Intel hardware, just like any other PC (and any version of Vista license can do that), or you can run Windows inside an emulator, running on top of Mac OS X (which requires a Vista Ultimate license.)

See further Running Windows on Intel-based Macs, especially the section about Boot Camp, and the section Running Windows in a Virtual Machine.

[ThePythonicCow]

Yup - Microsoft wants only Windows to be the host operating system for virtual machines.

I definitely prefer Linux or Mac OS X for hosting virtual machines.

[for-q-clinton]

I don't think microsoft is worried about that 30% of MAC users that run windows on their MAC. And since MAC at best makes up about 2% of the user bases worldwide that's not much money to M$.

[goldstategop]

Its quite simple - Microsoft is not in business to aid a competitor. And it views Apple as a competitor. You can either have Vista or Mac OSX but not both.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[goldstategop]

Apple makes more of a profit bunding its OS and hardware together. If they just sold software they wouldn't be in the position they are today. Consequently market reality dictates their business model has to be different from that of Microsoft. That's just the way Apple has to be run to remain profitable.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[rahbert]

whats the performance hit for running DX10 in virtualized mode?

[George W. Bush]

Except for a few Nvidia demos for the 8800, there are no DX10 games. Vista's desktop is only DX9. And we don't know if VMware or Parallels will support DX10.

What we do know is that VMware is already running DX8.1 and looks to be able to support DX9. Parallels claims they're closing in on it too.

There should be no more than a few percent of a performance hit. Since we use the same Intel hardware and you generally don't switch context during games, the machine's resources will go almost entirely to the game. Since they will propagate DX9 video/3d/sound calls and translate them to an OSX window, there will be a small hit but probably unnoticable to the player. My guess on performance hit is 5% or less.

[George W. Bush]

I forgot to mention that ATI, Nvidia, and the bigger game companies are pretty unanimous in saying that DX10 games won't appear until mid-2008. Microsoft disputes this and thinks there will be some earlier.

[for-q-clinton]

I think Crysis may be out by this fall/winter. It's supposedly the best looking game ever.