Print 45 comment(s) - last by rykerabel.. on Feb 5 at 9:50 AM

Virtual Windows Vista users will have to pay for the high-end OS





On the other hand, the EULA for Vista Business and Ultimate Editions allows virtualization, but with some boundaries:


For most Wintel PC users, the limitations set forth in the EULA for the Home versions of Windows Vista are meaningless. But for Mac and Linux users, the restriction to the top tier Windows Vista SKUs means a greater investment is required to virtually run the new OS. Microsoft believes that the main users of virtualization technology are businesses who can afford the added cost.

“Most customers using this technology are primarily business users addressing application compatibility needs, or technology enthusiasts,” said a Microsoft spokesperson to MacCentral. “So virtualization will be supported in Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate and Vista Business SKUs. Home users have rarely requested virtualization and so it will not be supported in Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium SKUs.”

Update 2/1/2007: Contrary to what we heard from Microsoft spokespeople, apparently the interpretation of the EULA posted above doesn’t present the whole picture of the license. As detailed in the Windows Server Division Weblog, the limitations to the Vista Home editions stems from restrictions to multiple installations. The mere fact that the Business and Ultimate Editions of Vista allow for greater freedom with the number of installations is the reason behind the permission for use in virtualization technologies. Microsoft has yet to offer official clarification on the subject at this time, but that’s the deal with the EULA as we understand it.

Comments     Threshold


RE: .
By bottle23 on 2/2/2007 11:12:09 AM , Rating: 2
what's the real reason for disallowing the use of virtualization in some versions?

Isn't it obvious by their response? Its about money.

They're saying, because a certain group of customers aren't gonna pay extra, they don't deserve Virtualisation.

While this other group can and will, deserve Virtualisation.

It isn't about capitalism. Its about greed. Plain and simple. Have a think about it with the context of harsher "anti-piracy" measures...They're trying to maximise their profits with Vista.

This is one of those cases where technology doesn't dictate the limitation, but economics.

RE: .
By semo on 2/2/2007 11:41:49 AM , Rating: 2
many argue that the anti-piracy (drm and what not) measures m$ has taken is because (in overly simplified terms) the mpaa/hollywood/whoever made them. you can also say that it takes 2 to tango and argue that m$ could have stepped up for the small guy and made things different (but individuals is not where the money's at).

RE: .
By Snuffalufagus on 2/2/2007 9:04:08 PM , Rating: 2
While I really can't agree with your reasoning as to why it isn't supported in the home version, I find your explanation of greed fricking hilarious.

It's like that time I wanted to buy some RAM for my PC, they had a 512MB stick for $75, but I wanted to get a 1GB stick, and those greedy bastards wanted to charge $120 for it. Those bastards, just cause I wasn't going to pay extra, I wasn't going to get as much as the people who did pay more, so it's like they deserved the extra memory locations, but I didn't. GREED, plain and simple. Charging more more for more functionality (maybe they could make it up by undercharging and selling in greater volume :)).

I can't really think of a scenario where the average home user would need to use virtualization. If you want to use it to experiment with other OSes, run Linux, 2000, 95, QNX, BSD, whatever, that's a little outside of the realm of a home user. And on the support side, I can imagine the nightmare of the call where the 40 year old soccer mom who calls up trying to get that virtualized environment up and running.

