Virtualization Disallowed For Vista Home

Maxx writes to mention a ZDNet article about Microsoft's dictum on Vista as a virtual machine. The software giant has declared that home versions of their upcoming OS may not be run virtually, because 'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.' From the article: "'Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security,' says Gartner analyst Michael Silver. 'The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300 for Windows Vista Business or US$399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of US$200 for Home Basic or US$239 for Home Premium,' Silver suggested."

B.S.

[MobyDisk (75490)]

This will be impossible and they know it. There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes. It wouldn't surprise me if MS did this internally. Meh, who cares though. Just another reason to use VMWare.

Re:B.S.

[thona (556334)]

::There are plenty of companies who need to virtualize this OS for testing purposes.

And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA. I would have to check these conditions, but I would be surprised would that appear there, too.

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!)

[cdn-programmer (468978)]

I would be one who would want to virtualize the home version. Anyone doing development may need to do this. There are many legitimate reason - ease of debugging is one. Ease of determining how someone 0wn3d a machine is another.

 

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!)

[number6x (626555)]

So just have your legal department contact MS and work through the licensing that will allow you to do this.

What? You don't have a legal department, and you can't afford to hire a law firm for something as trivial as setting up a virtual machine.

Gee, I guess that means that you won't be able to test the software you are writing against the Vista HOME platform in a cost effective manner. So you will either have to get out of that business, or release substandard software for that platform.

Microsoft's rule change will result in either increasing your costs, or decreasing your quality of product. either way they are reducing your ability to effectively compete with them in the free market. They are undercutting competition by manipulating the legal rules, as opposed to using direct head to head competition in the free market. Your product may not even compete directly with any of their existing products, but you still form a potential threat. You may be the next Linus Torvalds or David Heinemeier Hansson.

Reducing competition helps to protect their monopoly, or so they believe.

Of course, you may want to contact a lawyer that specializes in Class Action lawsuits. Get them to think of all of the web developers they can represent who are have their product's cost effectiveness reduced by this anti-competitive move from a convicted monopolist who is known to settle lawsuits quickly out of Court. Heck, you could make some law firm rich, and maybe even see a few hundred, or a few thousand dollars in settlement money!

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!)

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

You need a legal department to setup a VM?

Strange how I've never needed one of those for any other OS I have created a VM for in the past.
Which repository do I need to add to get a legal department?

Re:B.S. (NOT!!!)

[Dion (10186)]

Happily you don't need a lawyer as the only limitation on what you can do with Vista is Copyright law.

EULAs are 100% worthless and unenforcable.

Well at least in Denmark and I suspect much of the EU.

You see we have a set of restrictions on confusing marketing, you can't sell something and then later try to impose extra limitations on the buyer.

If MS wants to make the EULA assholery binding then they will have to present the terms BEFORE the sale takes place otherwise we are free to ignore it completely.

The same is true for language, if the EULA is written in english then it's 100% non-binding.

Re:

[julesh (229690)]

And only the most idiotic of those will use the Home EULA version. See, I use Home for testing downloaded from MSDN, and as such subject to the MSDN licensing agreement, NOT the EULA.

That's nice for you. Many of us can't afford the £567.49 per annum than an MSDN Operating Systems subscription costs.

Re:

[omeg (907329)]

Not just impossible, it should also not be allowed. Perhaps I'll be labelled as old-fashioned for saying this, but I still believe that if I've bought something, I should be able to do what I want with it. It's supposed to be mine, isn't it? (Yes, I know it's more complicated than that; but I still strongly disagree with that.) If I want to virtualize my copy of Vista, I should be able to do so. If the program somehow fails due to Microsoft deliberately making it impossible, then that's sabotage to me. Yet

Re:

[KokorHekkus (986906)]

Problem is that you have not bought something. You've just paid for the right to use it, with restrictions... you've paid a ticket to ride in Microsofts Funland Park - not bought all or part of it.

Looking at an Microsoft EULA you'll see the following text:

3. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP. Microsoft reserves all rights not expressly granted to you in this EULA. The Software is protected by copyright and other intellectual property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own the title, copyrig

Re:B.S.

[Andrew Kismet (955764)]

A reply to that would be "And if you don't have a computer, the only way you can use this product is by buying one. Should that be illegal too?"
More laws will not help. Microsoft can do whatever the hell they want with their own software and licensing.

Re:B.S.

[neoform (551705)]

*next week*

"Microsoft announces iTunes will be disabled on all copies of Vista, because it's a security risk that users doesn't understand."

(wow, as I wrote that, I got a creepy feeling.. that statement makes me think of all the trash that's come out of whitehouse press releases by Tony Snow)

Er?

[Wrexs0ul (515885)]

The article's point is that plenty of companies can do this, so long as they spend $60-$100 MORE for a business-class license. Apparently only those capable of spending more money have the cognitive capacities to understand risks involved in VM, and is a kick in the pants to home users who don't buy the same version as their office.

Which makes about as much sense as buying a more expensive copy of Windows for the coolness factor... A route their MS spokesperson maybe should've gone instead. Just imagine the

Re:Er?

[Dunbal (464142)]

commercials touting how you'll get laid dancing to your Virtual PC!

      Or virtually laid, at any rate...

Re:B.S.

[teslar (706653)]

this is clearly a bid to force us into the more expensive version

You know, I agree with the give-users-a-choice and all those arguments, but how many of your average computer users will know what virtualisation is, let alone need it? This is the kind of topic the slashdot crowd will be infuriated about while the rest of the world goes "meh. don't care", assuming they even notice this.

Re:

[Fred_A (10934)]

And how exactly is using a VM unsafe?

Because it's not mature enough, it's in the blurb right at the top of the page! And you certainly don't want to deal with anything underage on a computers nowadays!
It's about time MS thought of the children I say.

Either that or it's one of the lamest excuses ever, I'm not completely sure yet.

Re:B.S.

[MsGeek (162936)]

No, this is directed at people running Parallels on Mac OS X. It's unmistakeable. They want to kill Parallels. They also want to kill whatever virtualization solution is being built by Apple for a future Mac OS X.

Microsoft is feeling the heat from one of their oldest enemies. Leopard is a Vista-killer, and now that a large slice of the Macintosh population is MacIntel they are fearful that MacIntel will poach more customers from their base.

Re:Home User, Not the Companies

[QuantumG (50515)]

Yes..... and companies that write software for home users will need to run VMs that contain the home version of the operating system for testing purposes. Therefore the home user will also be able to do the same thing.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

What are you talking about? They are not testing that the product works in a virtualized environment. They are testing that it works on Vista Home. The software is deployed from the development machine onto the virtual machine that is in a 'clean' state. Testing is done, and then the virtual machine can be reset back to a clean state a lot quicker than re-imaging the hard drive of a physical machine. The final verion(s) will be tested on a physical machine after they are happy with the results on the

And real companies who build software for windows.

[by Anonymous Coward]

will have MSDN subscriptions, and the OSes you get through MSDN do not have this license restriction. It's a non-issue for software development houses.

Because choice is bad

[A beautiful mind (821714)]

So where do you want to go today?

Anti-Apple...again

[mabhatter654 (561290)]

this is specifically to get at Apple user's pockets!!!

This is so prevent the runaway success that Parallels has become for all the intel mac users. By putting this in the license, and probably with some flimsy second-rate "protection" they make the Parallels be legally forced to play their little game or get a DMCA suit. That's the rub here...Microsoft can FORCE the issue and use police officers if they want. They want customers buying the "upgraded" versions. The worst possible thing that can happen is that developers will make extra sure their products work with Home for all the "Apple" users... and I think Microsoft is trying to put applications into requiring the higher version of windows to even RUN. If all the Apple users make home the default version Microsoft can't continue to shake businesses down.

Yes

[skingers6894 (816110)]

'virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption.'

Well, neither is Vista probably.....

But it IS...

[hummassa (157160)]

It should have been +5 funny.

Some people here in /. (including me, sometimes) mod funny comments as insightful, especially if the comment is already negatively moderated (as offtopic, for instance). This is because a "+1, funny" won't increment the karma of the poster, but a "-1, offtopic" will decrement it. So, these moderations are done to give a funny poster a premium. I, personally, think that to fix this, "funny" mods should increment the poster's karma...

Re:

[giorgiofr (887762)]

At first I thought "slashdotprod" was some kind of daemon that turns you into a /. professional moderator... then I got the joke. Brilliant idea BTW.

Finally Microsoft admints

[by Anonymous Coward]

"...enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista.."

It's good that finally MS admitted running their OS has risks.

this makes my blood boil

[cyber1kenobi (666018)]

Microsoft just continues to prove that they don't get it. Virtualization is where it's at - if every home user had Windows running in a VM aka sandbox, and every time they shut off their box it went back to a clean snapshot... hey, we'd probably have a lot less bot nets out there ey?

Re:this makes my blood boil

[badfish99 (826052)]

On the other hand, if all my virtual machines have the same memory, network, disk size etc, then I'll only need to active Windows once, and I can run as many copies of it as I like: they will all see exactly identical machines, so the same activation code will work for all of them.

Could this be what Microsoft are really afraid of?

Understanding

[mSparks43 (757109)]

Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines
I dont understand, what risks?

Re:Understanding

[omeg (907329)]

The risk of everything turning out okay if you accidentally delete all your files or format your hard drive, perhaps (given that you are able to undo this in some virtualization software). Oh, what about the risk of being able to revert quickly if you get infected by a virus? Those are all terrible risks, and it's imperative that home users don't touch virtualization because of it!

Re:Understanding

[GreatBunzinni (642500)]

I dont understand, what risks?

The same risks Microsoft tried to avoid by making it impossible to use WinXP home as a server: the risk of no one buying the "enterprisey" version of their OS and thus not shelving an extra 200$ per seat.

Re:

[DrLex (811382)]

I dont understand, what risks?

Don't you know? You can die a horrible death while running an OS inside a virtual machine! It's like learning to fly a plane in a flight simulator, those things kill people!

What risks indeed..

[Savage-Rabbit (308260)]

I dont understand, what risks?

I note that they said: 'risks'... plural. Now, I won't pretend I know all of the risks Microsoft sees but the paranoid tin-foil-hat part of me would say that one of those risks is that they don't want OS.X and Linux users running Vista in a VM thus circumventing some of Microsoft's barriers, carefully crafted to prevent OS migration. My less paranoid side tells me they are simply trying to weasel out of having to provide tech support for (how many?) millions of users running Vista Home in a VM. If one calls the help center all they have to do is fall back on the old ' Well you see sir it's like this. If you read the EULA that came with your copy of Windows Vista Home edition you will see that....." routine. It will certainly be interesting to see if Vista Home will actually refuse to boot in a VM or whether this is only a cost limiting exercise.

Re:Understanding

[Zaatxe (939368)]

I dont understand, what risks?

The risk of the user circumventing DRM. In a virtual machine, your "sound board" may be sending everything played right to a .wav file, clean of DRM. Same for movies. And Microsoft don't want to give its customers the way to break the law!

The other option is to pay Microsoft US$300

[Threni (635302)]

Hehe!

"So you can't use virtualization, unless you can..ahem...demonstrate your understanding"
"Demonstrate my understanding? How would I do that?"
"Well...everything has its price. If you were to, shall we say, *invest* in some understanding, then I could let you use it"
"Ah - I understand. Is this enough of a demonstration?"
(Counting.."Yes, you appear to be sufficiently qualified" (flicks switch)

It's all about the revenue.

[QuietLagoon (813062)]

Microsoft's stock has been floundering [yahoo.com] for these past few years since Windows 2000 came on the scene. Microsoft needs Vista to jump-start the amount of revenue they take in. Those who want to use virtualization more than likely will not need to features of versions above MS Vista Home, yet Microsoft is forcing those users to spend more than they want to or need to.

Re:Foundering MS Stocks

[dsci (658278)]

Indeed. Another interesting snapshot is Comparison with Red Hat [yahoo.com].

Given the Novell deal, the attempted RH deal and other recent MS comments regarding Linux, I am beginning to buy into this whole "MS might be in trouble" arguement. I read about six months ago some issues with its market cap that point to a company not as financially secure as many people believe.

Sounds like bullshit...

[Lonewolf666 (259450)]

Frokm the linked article:

A Microsoft spokesperson told ZDNet Asia: "For production machines and everyday usage, virtualization is a fairly new technology and one that we think is not yet mature enough for broad consumer adoption."

[...]

Michael Silver, Gartner's research vice president, wrote on the analyst company's blog that like Windows rootkits, there is a risk that VM rootkits can be installed unbeknownst to the consumer.

"Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM," Silver said.

I call bullshit on both counts.

First, technology being immature has never stopped Microsoft before from selling it. And for protecting the consumer, a warning in the EULA would suffice. As in "Microsoft does not guarantee for correct function in a virtual environment". An outright prohibition points to other motives.

Second, unscrupulous makers of rootkits will hardly be stopped by an EULA, Mr. Silver.

Aiming at the foot...

[(H)elix1 (231155)]

Sounds like they are not allowing visualization on the Microsoft VM technology, and not a blanket statement on all VM technology like VMWare. I thought it was a nice touch that the Vista installer would fail under VMWare but worked just dandy on the Microsoft one. VMWare patched this in the 5.5.3 release earlier this month, so for those wanting to run Vista in a VM make sure you grab the latest greatest build. Also sounds like it will work if you have an MSDN subscription verion.

Foolish, however. In a VM, for demos, etc... I want as few features as possible using up as little RAM as I can. That way the applications I'm running have more resources. I already use Nlite to trim Win2k and Win2003 down substantially. Having something that has the 'ultimate' set of features OOTB is not a good thing. Thank goodness I spend more time on the server side rather than client - what a mess for those testing thick client applications.

Control the Base, Control the Industry

[Marcion (876801)]

In serfdom, the Lords own the land, so when the serfs get a good harvest, the Lords can up their rent, and when the serfs have a bad harvest, they can turf them out and keep sheep.

Microsoft seem to be going for a similar strategy, they want Windows always to be the base. Linux as a Virtual Machine on Microsoft is fine, but Microsoft as a virtual machine is not allowed.

If Windows is the base then they can keep their own products in the picture through bundling, dodgy secret agreements, blackmail and so on.

If they lose the base, then they actually have to compete as equals, and Microsoft does not do competition .

Reasons why I'll be passing on Vista...

[bealzabobs_youruncle (971430)]

I should preface this with the statement that I mostly use OS X and Linux for just about everything, but I usually take an extra box and slap the latest version of Windows on it just to maintain some knowledge for customers. But this might be the first version of Windows (yes, I endured ME) that won't get that treatment...

-Even more aggressive Windows Genuine Advantage snooping/phoning home. I haven't bothered to pirate your OS yet, if I pass initial activation you can get off my ass. I know my ass is close to m wallet so I see your motives.

-Exceedingly aggressive DRM built into WMP11. Just a thought, consider the consumer and not your media conglomerate buddies at mega-corp once in a while. You tell me to trust you with my digital life but you won't trust me?

-You insist that I am too dumb to run my PC; far too many processes are hidden/poorly explained or locked out of my control. Now you tell me I'm not smart enough to handle virtualization?

I've never been one to believe MS is some kind of innovation power house, but Vista disappoints on almost every level. I've never entirely trusted a Windows OS, but now my OS doesn't trust me. Linux makes a pretty adequate desktop these days and for those who want a totally trouble free experience OS X is still far more consumer friendly than Vista. True that iTunes does present some DRM issues, but they aren't that hard to subvert and the vast majority of files generated on/by OS X and associated applications are widely supported formats. It will be easy to recommend alternatives for the next couple years...

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

I don't like MS, but if any software I wrote was being heavily pirated, I'd probably want to do something about it.. product activation wouldn't really cut it these days I guess, as you can presumably just distribute already activated VM images?

This just in...

[laughingcoyote (762272)]

Microsoft has recently added to the EULA of its upcoming "Vista" program, disallowing users from installing the operating system.

"We see this as a very positive move for our customers," stated Microsoft chief public relations officer Benja Overr. "While the Windows CD is perfectly safe when being used, for example, for a game of Frisbee or as a very attractive coaster, it's well-known that when most of our customers place the CD in a computer, they end up with viruses, rootkits, and all other sorts of issues. We just don't feel the Windows operating system is mature enough for the average user to be playing with on their computer."

Microsoft stated that the UltiCruftcrapGigantoNightmareRameater version will be available to actually install in a computer. Tentative pricing for this version is set at $1000.

Translation....

[d3ac0n (715594)]

virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption

Translation: "We are getting SPANKED by VMWare in the virtualization market, and our PC virtualization sucks. So since we are unable to win against VMWare in the home market, we are taking our ball and going home."

Is anyone really surprised? Any market Microsoft cannot dominate they attempt to squash.

Re:

[d3ac0n (715594)]

Your argument is flawed, as some versions of Vista can still be run in virtualisation.

Hmm...

You must have missed the part where I said "home market".

You see, like many computing trends, virtualization is beginning to make inroads in the home market from the Enterprise market. It started among IT types wanting to run several OSes but not wanting the complication of a dual-boot setup. Apple has greatly helped it along with it's "Parallels" software, and VMWare has a version of it's free VMWare Player for OS

Strange figures

[badfish99 (826052)]

The figures in TFA are percentages, yet the total in the bottom row is a sum of money. How the hell did that happen?
And the total for SQL Server 2000 is twice that for SQL Server 2005 on the same version of Windows. Does upgrading a database really make that much difference? How?

Perhaps there are some clues in the document that you can download from Microsoft. This reveals that 100% of the linux servers were hosting dynamic web sites, but 50% of the Windows servers were hosting static web sites. That must make a big reduction in the Windows support costs. And there were 10 times more Windows servers than Linux servers, so the costs of Linux-trained admins were spread amongst fewer servers, making them seem more expensive per server.

My guess is that this study was done at a Windows-only shop that had been forced to install a few Linux servers for tasks that were beyong the capabilities of Windows, and was therefore spending a disproportionate amount of money supporting a few specialist Linux boxes.

looks familiar

[Andrei D (965217)]

Microsoft says that consumers don't understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks to run Vista on a VM. So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.
This just reminds me of the infamous quote:
This "users are idiots, and are confused by functionality" mentality is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
Once again Microsoft's attitude is an insult to its customers intelligence. Thank you Microsoft for letting us know that we are morons.

There are more restrictions

[lpiob (987705)]

Not only virtualisation is restricted:

• you can move license to another computer only once (even in BOX version). So you'll hava to buy new Vista after second mainboard upgrade
• there is a limit of 10 computers that can see each other and communicate using Microsoft Windows Neighborhood, even in Vista Pro or Ultimate version.
• license prohibits making screenshots containing desktop or icons or other artwork incorporated into Vista
• only Vista Ultimate can be copied on to hard disk

Well, of course!

[oneandoneis2 (777721)]

Look: If you buy a legitimate copy of Vista, and then install it on virtual hardware, it'll look to the WGA like you've installed it on multiple machines and it should shut you down for piracy. How are they supposed to monitor everything you do with your hardware if they let you use *imaginary* hardware as well?!?

Be reasonable!

Familiar?

[styryx (952942)]

FTA: '"So, Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security," he said.'

Don't forget terrorism and kiddy pron!

detect running virtualized

[pikine (771084)]

In theory, you can't, but many virtual machine managers (VMMs) leave apparent traces. For example, it allows screen drawing to be accelerated via a trap mechanism, which essentially lets a guest OS talk to the VMM. VMMs also provide CPUID, hard drive, and PCI device identification that reveal the fact that these devices are virtual. These measures allow you to detect a number of selected VMMs.