Microsoft to Mac - Its our Vista and You'll Pay If You Want It

[oldandinthe way]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_virtual_vista_2

Rather than permit Mac owners to run the Home Versions of Vista in Virtualization, Microsoft says NO! we won't license it to you. And the license for the business versions limit the use of certain features.

All in the name of security. Microsoft, tired of being accused by Apple and Apple owners of being lack in security concerns, has cracked down. It will now play your nanny.

[FulciLives]

From reading that article it sounds to me that this will only affect people that want to run two or more operating systems using "virtualization" (which I admit I have never heard of).

I can't imagine that this affects very many people other than maybe those that use a MAC and/or Linux. If so then screw them.

Your standard PC user can still do the "dual boot" option. That seems good enough to me.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[oldandinthe way]

Dual boot is effectively "pick a system". My personal experience is that people who have dual boot systems spend 90% of their time in one system.

For those rare people who are forced by the lack of software applications in one or another system to use two systems, virtualization is a major advantage.

The numbers are indeed small. Heck, they're a subset of the already small population of Mac users. But this is a finger in the eye to those folks.

I have little sympathy, but an appreciation of what is happening.

[Dv8ted2]

From reading that article it sounds to me that this will only affect people that want to run two or more operating systems using "virtualization" (which I admit I have never heard of).

I had a instructor that was running about eight different operating systems through Virtual PC. It does happen. It is great in testing environments.

[Snakebyte1]

It kinda makes sense for MS to do this. Most people have 1 platform, either Windows or MAC, and most go with the Windows, so there is more Windows software. If you could run Windows on a MAC then maybe more people would go with a MAC, seeing that they could have both OS's. If more buy MACs it would mean more have the MAC OS as well, which could mean more development of MAC software. More MAC software means more people buy a MAC... It could be a very slow process but over the long haul it could have some profound effects in market share.

[tekkieman]

@Snakebyte -

While your logic intrigues me, I can't say as it makes sense for MS to do this. Whether or not you buy a PC or a Mac, MS is going to charge you for the OS. They get their money regardless. So it makes little sense for them to dictate how you run the OS, other than the fact that they can. In fact, I would think that they would be less condemned for their poor security if people could just restore an image of the virtualized OS when it inevitably get infected by virii, malware, bloated registry, etc. It sure beats "reformat, reinstall".

On the other hand, your statement absolutely applies to Apple. This is exactly why they do not license OSX separately from Apple hardware. Outside of the nightmare of having to ensure interoperability with the mass of third-party hardware, they stand to lose a significant amount of income from the lack of sales of their hardware.

[RLT69]

This is old news. This has been out for sometime, several months before Vista was released.

It isn't targeted at Apple, it's targeted against all virtualization software, Zen, VMWare, etc., In fact it's seen more as a slap at VMWare then say Apple. Alot of businesses, universities use VMware. Not just for testing purposes but production purposes. One physical server can run hundreds of virtual servers. That saves alot of money.

Microsoft wants to make money off of virtualization. That's why the license restriction to the higher priced versions. The restriction of features doesn't amount to much:

"The license agreement prohibits virtualization programs from using Vista's BitLocker data-encryption service or from playing music, video or other content wrapped in Microsoft's copyright-protection technology."

Not a great loss there.

Apple's approach to virtualization is to bring it readily to the desktop, to the masses. Dual-booting is useful but a real pain. Simple launching you're favorite OS in a virtuakl environment is very handy.

Virtualization is the feature dejour right now. Operating systems are incorporating it - Mac, Linux and even Windows.; Intel and AMD have placed Virtualization features and enhancements right into the CPU.

This is a big growth area.

[Snakebyte1]

Over the short term, yes, MS would get its money if a MAC user purchased Windows, but, what about over the long run? If there were ever increasing numbers of MAC/Window machines out there then it might cause more MAC based software to be released, and then there would be less and less reasons to run Windows on a MAC, and MAC would have picked up some market share at the expense of the PC/Windows Platform.

Its not like this would cause a reversal where MAC rules, but it could involve enough of a % change, and in the OS industry 1% can be a huge amount of revenue lost/gained.

[JohnnyMalaria]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070222/ap_on_hi_te/microsoft_virtual_vista_2

Rather than permit Mac owners to run the Home Versions of Vista in Virtualization, Microsoft says NO! we won't license it to you. And the license for the business versions limit the use of certain features.

All in the name of security. Microsoft, tired of being accused by Apple and Apple owners of being lack in security concerns, has cracked down. It will now play your nanny.

Then all Mac users have to do is use Bootcamp and install the Home version as a physical install....

BTW, I've been using virtual PCs for years - originally VMWare Workstation but now Virtual PC 2007 since it you can have Vista in a virtual machine. For software development, it's a boon. Makes testing software on a clean install very easy.

[oldandinthe way]

Dual boot is not as attractive as virtual PCs, and has more securoty risks which virtualization does not.

Given some legacy applications requirements, we have some dual boot systems with multiple Windows versions, and make every attempt to minimize the time spent in the older systems. Virtual machines would be an advantage for us, and are on the list of things to get to.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Unfortunately, virtual PCs don't give you access to all the physical hardware. e.g., you can't access FireWire devices from a virtual PC (at least for VMWare and Virtual PC). In this situation, you have to have a physical installation of the OS. My main development box has:

XP SP2 MCE
XP Pro SP2
XP Pro SP2 (Dutch)
XP Pro x64
Vista Ultimate 32-bit
Vista Ultimate 64-bit

I need at least one non-English language version so I can detect localization issues (such as the names of pins of some - but not all - DirectShow filters!)

I also have a bunch of Virtual PCs, too....

[lordsmurf]

Snakebyte, you're not making any sense, at least not to me. Why would anybody buy more expensive Mac hardware to run Windows? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You buy Mac hardware to run Mac OS X.

Windows runs like crap on Mac hardware anyway, even if it is supposed to be Intel-based and more generic. Most folks I know would leave the Mac as a Mac, and then do all the virtualization on a normal box (Windows, Linux, Sun, etc). Then use a KVM.

[dnix71]

Johnny, on my eMac I have no trouble with firewire hds and I'm almost sure my FW Pioneer dvd burner will read in VPC Win98SE. You can't burn a disc from inside VPC on a Mac, though. A lot of pc apps won't work in VPC because they need real hardware to work. Super won't even install in VPC.

The major advantage of VPC for me is to be able to mount the virtual drive in the real one and copy files back and forth. If I have some video to convert and it can't be done on a mac or cost too much, then TMPGenc, or Isobuster or Nero can do it for me and make a file that can be burned from within OS X. Otherwise I have to borrow a pc and then burn the file to disc and move it over.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Johnny, on my eMac I have no trouble with firewire hds and I'm almost sure my FW Pioneer dvd burner will read in VPC Win98SE.

I should have been a bit more specific - things like DV camcorders can't be accessed from a virtual PC. External storage drives can, though, since they are accessed via the host operating system as shared folders.

[DereX888]

As we all (or most of us) already know, the 4.5% (or is down already below 4%?) of computer users commonly known as "MAC users" are mostly bunch of crackjack fanboy type nuts who would have never touch "anything windows"
My guess is MS knows that too.
So why bother...

[FulciLives]

As we all (or most of us) already know, the 4.5% (or is down already below 4%?) of computer users commonly known as "MAC users" are mostly bunch of crackjack fanboy type nuts who would have never touch "anything windows"
My guess is MS knows that too.
So why bother...

I recently found a bunch of short MAC spoof videos that make fun of the newish PC/MAC TV ads. I found most of them amusing ... especially the ads that include Linux and how both the PC and MAC guys "rip" on the Linux guy.

http://tv.truenuff.com/mac/

Enjoy

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Snakebyte1]

lordsmurf wrote:

Snakebyte, you're not making any sense, at least not to me. Why would anybody buy more expensive Mac hardware to run Windows? That makes no sense whatsoever.

You buy Mac hardware to run Mac OS X.

Windows runs like crap on Mac hardware anyway, even if it is supposed to be Intel-based and more generic. Most folks I know would leave the Mac as a Mac, and then do all the virtualization on a normal box (Windows, Linux, Sun, etc). Then use a KVM.

Most people likely would not buy more expensive MAC hardware simply to run Windows, but there would be some that would for various reasons. There are some that prefer the MAC but went with a PC because there is more software out there for the PC etc. Or simply they want to have both a MAC and a PC but don't want to pay for or have two computers on their desk. Maybe Dad wants a PC but Mom wants a MAC or parents want to provide both environments to their kids...

Its a bit like a dual format DVD burner. There are those that want +R, and those that want -R, but most I think prefer a burner that does both. Likewise with OS's. There are those that want MACs and those that want a PC. But a machine that could run both MAC OS and Windows may be appealing to some even if the hardware is more expensive. They will pay the premium to have that option.

I have no idea how well or poorly Windows runs on a MAC, but not all users out there are power users who try to squeeze out every last drop of performance from their machines, and they may be quite happy with its Windows performance.

This is not something I personally would do, but I do see why some people would think its great, and no doubt Microsoft see this too.

[oldandinthe way]

You guys seem to be missing the irony in this.

The major folks who will be affected by the licensing restrictions are the folks who tout their system OS/X as much more secure than Windows - any version.

Here is Microsoft forcing them to pay more (buy Business or Ultimate) because of security concerns. And even if they spend more the use is restricted.

Revenue does not figure in this. It is a small portion of a 5% or less market segment. Microsoft gains or loses very little. It is a poke at the Mac fanboys and another deterrent to the dupes who get convinced that a MAC can do anything their PC can, if you throw money at it.

A MAC can do, what a MAC can do, and in my opinion, no one will honestly stress its capability and its limits. Certainly not Apple.

[Poppa_Meth]

I think MS has every right to do this considering the ridiculous Mac commercials knocking Windows all the time. This is a good way to rub Apple's face in their own crap without resorting to the blatant marketing Apple is using.

[RLT69]

I think MS has every right to do this considering the ridiculous Mac commercials knocking Windows all the time. This is a good way to rub Apple's face in their own crap without resorting to the blatant marketing Apple is using.

You know that statement would make sense if the virtualization limitation only applied to Apple. As it stands it does not. Apple is an EXTREMELY small market when it comes to virtualization.

However, Windows/Linux is a MUCH MUCH larger market. As I said before businesses and universities use virtualization software, such as VMWare to reduce costs. This is a direct slap at them not Apple.


Lordsmurf do you have any performance numbers on virtualization on Mactels versus Lintels or Wintels? I'm curious to know if Mactels are slower when it comes to virtualization.

[JohnnyMalaria]

As I said before businesses and universities use virtualization software, such as VMWare to reduce costs. This is a direct slap at them not Apple.

Why would businesses and universities be using Vista Home?

If they use Ultimate, they can run virtual Vista legally (2 virtual machines per physical install I believe). With Enterprise, it's higher.

I don't see a slap in the face for these markets.

[SCDVD]

I have to say; anything that creates any form of inconvenience, misery, unhappiness or frustration with the Mac market is fine with me. I have grown very weary with the asinine, chip-on-the-shoulder attitude the Koolaid drinking Mac fanboys have. Their “in-your-face” confrontational attitude about the Mac became very hard to take. It is so stereotypical too. It really is some sort of sociological disease. The fact is; Mac has less that five percent of the PC market. There is a reason for that too – It costs more money to do less, with far less available software to use. MANY of the software companies have abandoned the Mac market because it is too small. It just isn’t worth the expense of developing Mac specific software. Apple realizes this too. They realize it more than anyone, much to their chagrin. That is why they changed course drastically a couple of years ago and started making PCs. That’s right; A MAC TODAY IS JUST A PC! It uses an Intel processor chip and has a plain vanilla PC motherboard with a hack on it that will allow it to also run the Mac OS. They had to accommodate the Mac OS so they wouldn’t loose the Koolaid drinking fanboys. The fanboys absolutely HATE to hear this because deep inside they know their cult leader abandoned them even though they will never admit it.

Apple did one thing very well in the early days of the Mac. They did everything they could to get Macs into schools. They realized a couple of things. 1. Kids are very impressionable with a compelling need to fit in. If something becomes “fashionable” in their eyes, they are blindly loyal to it. Facts, features and benefits have nothing to do with it. If it is fashionable in their eyes to have scarlet red streaks in their hair, then every girl in class wants to have scarlet streaks in their hair. They desperately want to fit in and be accepted as “cool”. So if a corporation is cunning enough to create the impression with kids that a Mac is “cool”, the kids blindly do what they need to do to feel “cool” and fit in. 2. The second part of Apple’s “formula” was the realization that people are creatures of habit. If they become familiar with a particular system and OS, it is natural to not want to go through another learning curve to become familiar with a new environment. Apple was hoping that once a Mac user, always a Mac user because of this.

Most of the school kids grew up and took the red dyed streaks out of their hair and started using PCs like other normal adults because they realized there were many practical reasons to do so. But a few became social mutants and stuck to their ways. So the next time you see some partially graying man walking down the street with a pony tail and a strange body odor, you can bet he has a Mac at home.

[The Stinger]

If you have never used a Mac you have no say it whats what. Smurf, I have a friend who just purchased a Macbook pro and he loaded XP on it to play games. And trust me, the thing runs Windows better than a lot of PCs out there. No hiccups or frame drops. I too use a Mac, and have a pc in case I need it. But I must say it is nice to not have to worry about spyware and crap being dumped into my registry. I like the easiness of mac. It might not have the greatest software library but for what I do it does the job.

[Vintage]

MAC OS X has always been able to run on intel (it was designed that way from the very start I believe Steve jobs was thinking way ahead here). Microsoft has the right to withhold it from Mac users. Reality is though that macs have always been favorite among the arts (musicians, photographers, etc...) And that is there strong point. What I see as a threat is the fact that Steve is such a forward thinker that Microsoft is afraid of where he's headed next. He knew music was going to be big and built the software ahead of the curve so when it exploded he was right there front and center. Enough to make iTunes the 3 largest music distributor ( Bigger than some Brick and mortar stores). And now with a built in camera on all IMacs and mike I think Steve is seeing the next market he's going after. The popularity of YouTube is no accident. So you're right Mac has run a snug campaign against PC's but it the hardware not the software. Microsoft is just trying to play catch up in these developing markets and don't want Mac to get any further ideas before they at least get half way there.

[RLT69]

Why would businesses and universities be using Vista Home?

Good question. But then what the difference between Home Premium and Business?

If you can get away with running Home Premium why should you have to buy Business? Most business users don't need all the features of Vista. It would probably be a good idea from an IT perspective to have them locked down. Thus Premium would probably suffice - assuming Microsoft did not remove necessary networking protocols.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Why would businesses and universities be using Vista Home?

Good question. But then what the difference between Home Premium and Business?

Have a look here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/choose.mspx

The key things that Business has that Home Premium doesn't are:

Windows Complete PC Backup and Restore (I've used this on Ultimate and it's a big improvement over previous offerings. I particular like that each partition can be backed up to a virtual hard drive file which you can then mount in Virtual PC).

Networking Center and Remote Desktop

Whereas Home Premium has a number of features absent in Business - all of which are multimedia/"fun" stuff.

Business Upgrade: US$199 - Virtualization allowed
Home Premium Upgrade: US$159 - Virtualization not allowed

Also, Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate have a common licensing agreement (here)
but Business has its own (here).

[DereX888]

If you have never used a Mac you have no say it whats what. Smurf, I have a friend who just purchased a Macbook pro and he loaded XP on it to play games. And trust me, the thing runs Windows better than a lot of PCs out there. No hiccups or frame drops. I too use a Mac, and have a pc in case I need it. But I must say it is nice to not have to worry about spyware and crap being dumped into my registry. I like the easiness of mac. It might not have the greatest software library but for what I do it does the job.

Of course it runs it better than a cheaper version of PC with same Windows, don't you get it why yet?
Because your friend's "MAC" is not a MAC anymore, its a PC with OS X operating system, no different from PCs with Windozes or Linuxes on them.
If your friend have spend exact amount of money on "real" PC's hardware what he has spent on a "PC with OSX" made by Apple, I am almost certain he would have had even better PC and Windows would have run even better on it too

Its like buying a Sony product: it has the same "guts" made in the same factories as i.e. Matsushita products, but people pay more for the "It's a Sony" sticker because they think they buy better product Its a marketing, albeit in the case of Apple its a bad marketing obviously - since their market share constantly shrinks year by year in the past 15 years (for crying out loud: worst PC manufacturer ever - Compaq - had bigger market footprint than Apple in the best year LOL)


I dont know what easiness youre talking about on Mac?
What exactly is easier there than on a PC? Give some distinct examples, I am curious, because I suspect you formed your opinion after watching those "PC vs MAC" ads

BTW those ads:
I almost choke when I saw first one - where MAC says is for playing and fun, while PC talks about pie charts HAS ANYONE SEEN A POPULAR GAME FOR MAC? ANY GAME FOR MAC? (Please don't say "Sims" )
Those ads are cool, don't get me wrong.
But I am sure these ads will only backfire at Apple - because they are mostly lies. If the target for those ads are Windows users and Apple was hoping to switch few of them to MACs, then they already lost it - no real or casual gamer will ever switch from Windoze to MAC, I can assure you. Gamers know its a lie.
Same goes for the 'business suits' - and the ads already state it itself that the PC is better for business than the MACs! What a dumb move :O
So I really don't get it at whom those ads were targeted at? Some old grannies in hope they like youth charm of MAC actor? They can't get 'gamers' to switch to MACs, they can't get any regular Windows users to switch to MACs who knows anything about his own PC, and they certainly don't want businesses to switch to MACs... Whom then is the demographic/customer type these ads are targeting? Well, I say those ads are targeting only the current MAC users just to stay with their MACs! They really seems to be the only real marketing target of those ads after closer analysis, don't they? And they are the only ones who would believe in comparisons between "MAC home movie" and "PC home movie" (that was really funny hahaha), or those "pie charts as PC's fun"... or the "upgrading nightmare" (LOL - this I can really believe: for average MAC user, who never did any computer upgrading - thus he don't know shit about anything inside his comp - it may really be a nightmare! MAC-boys just buy another MAC instead of upgrading because they don't have any choice...) IMHO Apple must be really running scared and be so afraid that the last 4% of their market they have might quickly switch to Windows (or Linux hopefully!) since now they can do it on those intel-MACs

Anyways, they can fool only a MAC users or some total newbie to computers in general, someone who never had a computer yet, and simply don't know that he can get not only more but better games on PCs than MACs, better gaming experience too, overwhelmingly more hardware and software, and he can always upgrade his PC both hardware-wise and software-wise.
Has anyone upgraded his MAC beside adding more RAM? Please post tutorial here if you did, Im sure plenty of other MAC users would like to know how-to as well
Windows is crap, but MACs are proprietary crap, which is even worse. Actually I'm wrong: they were proprietary crap. Now intel-MACs are just overpriced and seriously hardware-limited PCs with pre-loaded operating system from Apple.


PS:
THIS is more true version of "PC vs MAC" ad (check it out, it is really funny )

[lordsmurf]

DereX888 really nailed it on the demographic. At best they might be trying to get non-computer users to start using them, but it's pretty much built on a pack of lies. Unless these people have rabid Mac fanboys as friends (unlikely, given the 3% market share), then knowledgeable friends will tell them the ads are bullshit and direct them to better systems suited to their tasks (the $500 Windows desktops and laptops from office stores, and not the $2000 Mac systems of equal hardware/software). As it stands, the Mac vs PC ads remind me of a girl or guy begging not to be dumped by his mate ("please don't dump me, honey!"). Pathetic.

I also have to call bullshit on the "Windows works better on a Macbook than a PC laptop" non-sense. Poor performance has been the major killer to Bootcamp becoming anything other than a sideline feature for testing web browsers.

SCDVD, that was a beautiful post. The psychological analysis is pretty much right on target. You're a pretty good writer, by the way. I'd have to go one further, in fact.... I honestly believe most "Mac is best" folks are teenagers, college aged at most (and owning a severe case of arrested development, socially). In a few cases, it's these esoteric people (usually soccer-mom-aged women) that are so overly artsy-fartsy you want to run away from them screaming, in the hopes your sanity did not fade merely from being in their presence. Aside from those two groups, I have NEVER met a sane adult (and not some unknown online that claims they are an adult, as those are usually kids too) tell me, without laughing, that a Mac was in any way superior or preferable to a Windows or even a Linux system. The few folks I know, who are Mac-owning sane adults, are low-end computer users that simply liked them for a few features and do nothing else (photo editing, easy simplistic videos, e-mail). They readily own (at home or work) a Windows/Linux system, and readily agree that the Mac is not for serious work (accounting, video editing, design, layout, publishing, servers, etc). What always gets me to roll my eyes are those outdated comments like "Mac is better for graphics" or "Mac is what they make movies on". Clearly, NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE, actually work in a publishing or video industry. They're repeating some bullshit a salesman told them, which the salesman heard from somebody else that heard it 10-20 years ago.

How did this post turn all Mac-vs-PC anyway? Windows wants more money for people who want to use Windows in ways that it was not really designed for. So what? This sort of use probably drives up development time and costs, and I cannot blame them for needing to find those funds from the people who demand such functionality.

[oldandinthe way]

The Mac still has great support in the graphic arts community and other aspects of the arts.

You can find that many of the folks that design slow and annoying websites are doing it with the help of the MAC.

Many companies preparing film and music still prefer MAC based tools, and ignore folks who are PC-based.

No matter how many times Apple screws their users, especially through no compatibility between O/S upgrades, forced O/S upgrade to obtain hardware upgrades and inadequate support they keep tapping it up.

All they've got is their misleading (or perhaps dishonest) commercials and their fanboys.

[DereX888]

I'd have to go one further, in fact.... I honestly believe most "Mac is best" folks are teenagers, college aged at most (and owning a severe case of arrested development, socially). In a few cases, it's these esoteric people (usually soccer-mom-aged women) that are so overly artsy-fartsy you want to run away from them screaming, in the hopes your sanity did not fade merely from being in their presence. Aside from those two groups, I have NEVER met a sane adult (and not some unknown online that claims they are an adult, as those are usually kids too) tell me, without laughing, that a Mac was in any way superior or preferable to a Windows or even a Linux system. The few folks I know, who are Mac-owning sane adults, are low-end computer users that simply liked them for a few features and do nothing else (photo editing, easy simplistic videos, e-mail).

I must add 2 more categories:

Interior designers
Almost every catalog, book and show I read or attended (due to my studies) always have MACs on display.
Yes, they are more "presentable" than the plain old beige PC boxes, but when few times I noted that there are plenty of beautiful PC cases and monitors that could be used on display instead, you know what answer I got? Its impossible to find the mock-up models of those nice ones. PC display mockups come only in black or beige ugly models! Only Apple supplies plenty of their mockups and real models at very low costs (great marketing move, isn't it? )
For the same reasons we always see MACs on tv shows and in the movies.
If the character uses a laptop, you can bet its some iDiot MAC model...

Gays
From all MAC users I know of (among real people) who chose and use MACs at home - 3 men and 1 woman - all 3 men are gay.
(The woman actually fits lordsmurf's profile haha).
Not that I'm saying all MAC users are gay, no, but knowing "homo community" well (I work in showbusiness related government office... I meet them on daily basis) it is very natural for them to value "esthetics" of say iBook over the Acer Ferrari's top-notch hardware.
The operating system or laptop's functionality has nothing to do with their choices...