Facebook Plunges Again
Tumblr 101: Tips And Tricks To Get Started
Virtualization: The OS cold war
Virtualization software, allowing you to simulate a "computer within a computer", is increasingly becoming a tricky subject. With products like Parallels Desktop, VMWare and Microsoft's Virtual PC allowing you to, in a way, mix and match operating systems, the licenses behind those operating systems are becoming more complicated and restrictive. Microsoft, for example, doesn't allow low-rent versions of Vista (Vista Basic, or Vista Home Premium) to be used within a virtual environment; If you want that privilege you'll need to cough up some extra dough for Vista Ultimate, Vista Business or Vista Enterprise. Not to be outdone, Apple doesn't allow OS X in a virtual environment at all, ever; Not on Apple hardware or anyone else's.These kinds of license restrictions might have been understandable just a few years ago. Desktop virtualization was relatively new and, Apple's computers didn't have Intel processors. The world was a strange and different place. However, today all sorts of people run Windows on a Mac in a virtual environment, not just the ubërgeeks. So why has Microsoft decided to decree from on high that, if you want to run Windows in a window, you'll need to fork over extra dough?
ZDnet's Mary Jo Foley asked Microsoft that question directly and, here's what they said, "For production machines and everyday usage, virtualization is a fairly new technology, and one that we think is not yet mature enough from a security perspective for broad consumer adoption. Today, customers using virtualization technology with Windows are primarily business customers addressing application compatibility needs or technology enthusiasts." (emphasis added)
It's an answer, although less than satisfying. If virtualization isn't "mature" enough, then why is it OK for business customers? If virtualization isn't ready for "broad consumer adoption" then why are you allowing customers with thicker wallets to try it out? Are customers who fork over the extra cash for Vista Premium magically more "secure" and therefore immune to whatever boogey-man lies in wait for the "technology enthusiast" who'd want to install Vista Basic in a virtual machine?
Although no less frustrating, Apple's blanket stance against virtualization for OS X makes far more sense. Apple is, first and foremost, a hardware company. When you remove Apple hardware from the equation, you begin to chip away at what makes Apple profitable. Microsoft doesn't face that same challenge so, what gives?
Comments
10
Subscribe to commentsgatekeeperFeb 13th 2007 3:49PM
The answer they gave was a load of horse shit. The real answer is simple. Microsoft is promoting and selling their software. Think about it this way: If Microsoft allows only its more expensive operating systems to run virtually, then people are forced to buy the most expensive versions if they want to do it legally.
If not, Mac and Linux users would just buy the least expensive version of Vista and get the full benefit on the cheap. Not being a hardware company, Microsoft doesn't care who it sells its software to as long as it sells it, so it is actually a very wise strategy to maximize profits out of every market.
gtnconceptFeb 13th 2007 3:53PM
I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, but Vista Basic's EULA only forbids virtualization on a machine where that copy of Vista is already installed as a non-virtualized OS.
From the EULA:
"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
You cannot virtualize Vista Basic on your installation of Vista Basic. This means there is no problem with running Vista Basic in Parallels if you're not also using it in BootCamp.
El GuapoFeb 13th 2007 4:29PM
Hmmm, why are we bashing Microsoft when it's clearly stated in the article that Apple is MORE restrictive? Coupled with the note above, which exposes the lie about MS restricting virtualization, I can only conclude this is more of Download Squad's attempt to (A) pander to the MS-bashing craze to drive page views and (B) incite OS wars to, again, drive page views.
El GuapoFeb 14th 2007 9:33AM
"you begin to chip away at what makes Apple profitable."
Ah OK, so Apple is allowed to be profitable, but Microsoft isn't. Makes perfect sense! Score another one for the mindless apple drones!
gatekeeperFeb 13th 2007 4:12PM
Thanks for the clarification. I stand corrected.
Some random guyFeb 13th 2007 4:50PM
"Ah OK, so Apple is allowed to be profitable, but Microsoft isn't."
Holy heck. I didn't even catch that. I guess I've been desensitized by reading tech blogs too long.
Todd HenkelFeb 14th 2007 7:53AM
On the other hand, what person savvy enough to setup virtualization is going to want only Vista Basic? But perhaps there are some that just want to run Windows programs and will rely on the other OS to handle the bulk of their needs...
Thoughts?
St3phenFeb 21st 2007 12:33AM
El Guapo, let me get this straight: Microsoft, a *software company*, allows virtualization- but only if you use versions of the software costing multiple hundreds of dollars... leading to more profit for Microsoft when customers pony-up the money. They make money every time someone buys a Windows license for use in virtualization.
Apple, a systems company, *not* a software company, only allows their OS to run on Apple hardware. And while OS X is only $129, Apple has never sold a packaged retail version of OS X for Intel-based computers. Apple would, therefore, not make any money if people ran OS X in virtualization.
Apple makes their money primarily by selling *systems*, Microsoft by selling *software*. Yet, somehow, in your mind, Microsoft is *not* making a profit when they require users to buy the high-dollar versions of their OS while Apple is screwing us all when they object to (what is, by definition) piracy of their OS. Yeah, score another one for the mindless apple drones!
TomFeb 13th 2007 9:14PM
Please explain to me how forcing you to buy expensive hardware to run the OS (Apple) versus making you purchase a more expensive OS (Microsoft) for virtualization is any different. Apple and MS both suck. Every last penny...
BradleyFeb 18th 2007 12:05AM
Todd,
That is exactly what it is. When the new version of Office for the Mac comes out, it will no longer support VBA macros, so I will need to have a virtual Windows machine to now run the Windows version of Office that I will now need to purchase.
So in the end, MS is screwing people... instead of being able to just buy a Mac version of Office, Mac users will now need to buy Windows and a Windows copy of Office in order to maintain compatibility with existing macros and the open document format.