Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 24th Nov 2006 11:29 UTC, submitted by Kenasai
Microsoft Consumers cannot run home versions of Windows Vista as virtual machines because virtualization is not mature enough for broad adoption, says Microsoft. They claim "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".
Order by: Score:
Please
by Headrush on Fri 24th Nov 2006 11:49 UTC
Headrush
Member since:
2006-01-03

This may be the dumbest excuse yet by MS for anything.
It's to protect the user?

Edited 2006-11-24 11:50

Reply Score: 5

We know better...
by vilinski on Fri 24th Nov 2006 11:53 UTC
vilinski
Member since:
2006-11-24

"that consumers don't understand the risks of running Vista parallel to Linux at home" They wouldn't buy other Microsoft Software, is very risky!

Reply Score: 5

RE: We know better...
by BluenoseJake on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:28 UTC in reply to "We know better..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but considering that most home users get it on their PCs, as mentioned...I don't know a MILLION times, they probably don't care that you can run Linux and Vista in parallel, they just want to download their porn and music, do some IM, and maybe write an email or two.

People who are going to run VM's are geeks, sysadmins and developers, not the run of the mill home user, and those people are not going to run any version of Vista Home, they are going to run Vista Ultimate, or Business.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: We know better...
by dsmogor on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: We know better..."
dsmogor Member since:
2005-09-01

>People who are going to run VM's are geeks, sysadmins >and developers, not the run of the mill home user, and >those people are not going to run any version of Vista >Home, they are going to run Vista Ultimate, or Business.

But just in a tiniest case they would anyway, MS wants to make sure they are protected against this dreadable mistake.

Reply Score: 1

What risk?
by Tsukasa on Fri 24th Nov 2006 11:56 UTC
Tsukasa
Member since:
2006-05-15

I don't see any problems. The rootkit scenario mentioned by Microsoft is void considering that this kind of rootkit implementation would use processor paravirtualisation and not use a whole VMware or qemu solution.

It seems it also proves to be risky to run more than 3 applications at the same time, so only enterprise users should be allowed to run more - following Microsofts logic.

Just like mentioned in the article, this is just a dirty way of making money off people.

Edited 2006-11-24 11:58

Reply Score: 5

Weird ..
by HiThere on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:02 UTC
HiThere
Member since:
2006-05-13

Since when are enterprises not customers?
OK, that is a bit picky on the words, but why do you want to run a home version "virtualized" anyway? Isn't virtualization to make your service(s) _server_ (hardware) independant?

It might be me since i know jack .. about that stuff aside from some demos and press releases...
Just seems strange to me to say that home versions cannot be used while others can =/

Edited 2006-11-24 12:05

Reply Score: 1

RE: Weird ..
by RenatoRam on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:06 UTC in reply to "Weird .."
RenatoRam Member since:
2005-11-14

Maybe you want a "browsing station" that goes on the internet but can wiped away and re-created pristine in minutes (from a frozen copy of the vm) in case you stumble on some malware, for example.

Also, you can move the VM to a new hardware by drag and drop copy. Instant migration.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Weird ..
by stestagg on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:51 UTC in reply to "Weird .."
stestagg Member since:
2006-06-03

Since when are enterprises not customers?

They aren't. They're huge vats of molten money that can (and should) be tapped at every opportunity.

Reply Score: 5

BS
by Hurtta on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:18 UTC
Hurtta
Member since:
2006-04-16

Gosh. This has to be some kind new record on the thickness of bullshit MS has ever said...

Reply Score: 5

obsethryl
Member since:
2006-11-16

It really takes guts to do this. Real guts.

Reply Score: 5

netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

So, Microsoft is calling their customers idiots.

No only the home users.As most of the money comes from business licensing.

Reply Score: 5

Lith Maethor Member since:
2006-02-26

Never attribute to courage what can be adequately explained by stupidity.

Reply Score: 5

obsethryl Member since:
2006-11-16

Of course. Their surplus has made these two things unclear for Microsoft... I really want to see this evolving ;)

Reply Score: 1

Rootkits?
by stestagg on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:54 UTC
stestagg
Member since:
2006-06-03

So you're not allowed to use virtualisation because there is the possibility of rootkits?

Then I think Microsoft should change their EULA to prevent paying customers from running another piece of software that can be exploited by root-kits, and has already been by Sony. That way, everyone is safe. ;)

Reply Score: 3

Yeah, right.
by Crono on Fri 24th Nov 2006 12:55 UTC
Crono
Member since:
2006-11-08

Marking every user of normal Vista editions "retarded".
Great job, Microsoft!

So, what "risks" can be there? Oh, right, you can like freeze the System, so next time the VM starts, there's no reboot needed!
Or can it be that you are afraid, that suddenly 2,000,000 (I was too lazy to google realistic values for the usage of VMs) Vista-"machines" have exactly the same, emulated hardware?
Or do you just want to make more money?

Reply Score: 2

What crap
by r3m0t on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:04 UTC
r3m0t
Member since:
2005-07-25

Here's what I wrote recently on the Windows Vista Team Blog. This was in response to somebody's claim that Microsoft were "advising us" not to run WMDRM technologies and BitLocker on a virtual machine. By "advice", he meant "advice in the form of a license which may be legally binding". I replied:

Your reasoning seems to be that Microsoft is protecting all of us from making a silly mistake such as trusting BitLocker on a VM to secure all our data. They are doing this by "advising" us not to do it, or indeed, not to use BitLocker on a VM at all.

This "advice" comes in the form of a legal contract. (Legal in some countries, anyway...)

You may be aware of a registry key in Vista (RC1 at least) which allows you to run Aero on any graphics card, instead of trusting the MS hardware detection. On an underpowered computer, all you need to do is open regedit, change this key, then switch from Aero Basic to Aero. Of course, MS hardware detection actually *is* always right, and your full Aero will run like a dog. *BUT IT'S MY CHOICE TO TURN IT ON*. Maybe you should suggest a change to the EULA which prevents people from running Aero on people's computers when Vista thinks their computers are inadequate?

Maybe the EULA should tell me that my Windows password(s) must be resistant to dictionary attacks?

Maybe the EULA should tell me that I must run a virus scan on any attachments I receive through Windows Mail?

Maybe the EULA should tell me not to run any unsigned drivers? In fact, it already does! (See the deliberately vague "technical limitations" clause.)


I've seen n4cer on OSNews, so if s/he's here: I read your reply suggesting that somebody could sue Microsoft if they run BitLocker in a VM and the data from the VM is then stolen. My answer to that is that in that case they should merely have put up a *notice* in the BitLocker setup explaining the problem. If it appears to be running in a VM (which is deliberately easy to detect in all major VM software) then it could also display a prompt.

However, by putting this clause in the license, Microsoft is simply trying to make you require Windows to read your data. (This goes along with recommending very strongly that you use a TPM to store your BitLocker key, instead of a USB key. For those of you who don't know, the TPM restricts the hard drive to your particular motherboard (and hence computer). The USB key (if secured on a keyring or necklace) restricts the hard drive to you.) You say that the cryptography behind BitLocker is open - and it is - but do we really know what every bit in the header of the BitLocker partition or disk really means? No? Then nobody can write a Linux driver.

Remember, if MS decides that your Vista isn't legitimate, it turns it into a generic browsing machine - right down to not being able to see your normal desktop background. There is no option to copy out the disk or anything useful like that. Then the only way you can get to your BitLocker data is to get another license.

Reply Score: 5

RE: What crap
by n4cer on Fri 24th Nov 2006 21:16 UTC in reply to "What crap"
n4cer Member since:
2005-07-06

I've seen n4cer on OSNews, so if s/he's here: I read your reply suggesting that somebody could sue Microsoft if they run BitLocker in a VM and the data from the VM is then stolen. My answer to that is that in that case they should merely have put up a *notice* in the BitLocker setup explaining the problem. If it appears to be running in a VM (which is deliberately easy to detect in all major VM software) then it could also display a prompt.

As I said in my reply on that blog, I think there could be better ways of handling this, however, putting it in the EULA provides added protection as it is the document customers use to determine the legal implications of using the software. It is available online, so anyone may access it before purchasing or installing the software, and it is much easier to update than any piece of UI. I do not agree with a general VM restriction, provided you are in fact restricted from installation of the Home SKUs in a VM. The license still reads as if you are restricted from using the same copy in a VM. I do not have an issue with the BitLocker and WMDRM clauses in the EULA as there's no reason for a general user to run those technologies in a VM. It's unsupported, untested, possibly variable depending on the virtual environment, and would just result in either insecure configurations, or situations where the user can't get their data out of the VM because it is locked to the VM.

However, by putting this clause in the license, Microsoft is simply trying to make you require Windows to read your data. (This goes along with recommending very strongly that you use a TPM to store your BitLocker key, instead of a USB key. For those of you who don't know, the TPM restricts the hard drive to your particular motherboard (and hence computer). The USB key (if secured on a keyring or necklace) restricts the hard drive to you.) You say that the cryptography behind BitLocker is open - and it is - but do we really know what every bit in the header of the BitLocker partition or disk really means? No? Then nobody can write a Linux driver.

BitLocker is optional. Even if you use it, getting your data out is as simple as a file copy.

The recommendation to use a TPM (you can use either or both a TPM and USB key in concert) is for additional security. The TPM is on the motherboard, won't change, get lost, or help the bad guy if you happened to have left the key in/with the computer when it was stolen. It is easier to manage in a large organization, is tamper resistant, and keeps track of certain machine configuration data so it can determine whether someone has tampered with the machine before releasing the keying materials that unlock the protected volume(s).

If wide access is more important to you, simply don't encrypt the drive, or use a technology more suitable for this scenario. You have that choice.

In the context of a VM, do you not think it's necessary for MS to protect themselves if BitLocker can't differentiate virtual environments (again, I don't know whether it can or cannot), and some customer uses it in that manner, suffers data theft, and that customer and/or his customers blame MS? Putting it in the EULA tells the customer that the scenario isn't supported, and can be used as coverage when some company misuses the technology, causes the release of their customers' personal information, and the inevitable lawsuits arise.

Remember, if MS decides that your Vista isn't legitimate, it turns it into a generic browsing machine - right down to not being able to see your normal desktop background. There is no option to copy out the disk or anything useful like that. Then the only way you can get to your BitLocker data is to get another license.

Or you can use recovery mode to move your data to a machine that has a legitimate license. You clearly haven't read the System Integrity Blog as I suggested earlier or you'd know your above statement is false.

http://blogs.msdn.com/si_team/default.aspx

Last, I'll point out an error of implication in the article this discussion is about. There are no restrictions on the VM technology used for virtualization scenarios (i.e., VPC vs VMWare), and VPC's disk format is also open.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/virtualserver/techinfo...

Reply Score: 1

v Wow
by ronaldst on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:06 UTC
RE: Wow
by merkoth on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:14 UTC in reply to "Wow"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

all comments above me are trollish!

Even though they're all eager to purchase their own copy of Vista!


Please edit your posts and add <sarcasm></sarcasm>. Please.

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Wow
by ronaldst on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
v RE[3]: Wow
by slight on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
RE[4]: Wow
by gilboa on Sat 25th Nov 2006 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I have an MSDN copy of Vista (from work) that I can install, but I -choose- not to.
I see no reason to replace my working copy of XP/Pro with yet-to-be-really-tested copy of Vista just add eye-candy (ObjectDesktop works just fine) building VM (VMWare server takes care of that) and DRM. (Don't need it)

On the other hand, seems that I'm not as smart as the LOL'ing OP. (If I only I could auto-ban every 3y/o who uses the term LOL... The world would have been a much better place)

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Nov 2006 16:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

I for one will never buy Vista - nor download it for free when it becomes available through MSDN AA.

Why pay for something that's been available for more than a decade in several different implementations?

Microsoft's statements are so hilarious, I'd laugh if it wasn't because they are so incredibly offensive.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[4]: Wow
by ronaldst on Fri 24th Nov 2006 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wow"
RE[5]: Wow
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:07 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wow"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Who's crying?

Perhaps peopće are just getting annoyed by the marketing speak? A company that claims their customers are morons can be sure to be looked at as obnoxius.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by Moochman on Fri 24th Nov 2006 20:02 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wow"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't take offense to your notion that many people who posted above may want to install Vista. You're probably right. But that still doesn't give you the right to call them trolls. It makes perfect sense to speak out against a company's decisions, PARTICULARLY when you have a vested interest in the product. Just because you use a company's product doesn't mean you have to swear allegiance that you will never criticize that company or risk being called a troll. When Apple's customers complained about the Apple not fixing the MacBook heat problem, did you call them trolls, too? When American citizens who happen to like the country they live in speak out against their goevernment's policies, does that make them trolls, too?.

I'm afraid it's you, with your blanket insults of other posters on this site, who is being a troll.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Wow
by merkoth on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Wow"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

Be honest with yourself. These trolls, deep down, all want and need Vista.

They're probably gonna try to get a Corp edition though... LOL


I don't know if they're going to install Vista or not and, actually I don't really care. And I don't know what your comments have to do with the Microsoft claims commented in the article. IMHO they're giving a poor excuse to make their customers pay extra if they want vitualization. But think whatever you want, if you can think while laughing out loud.

On the other hand, I can't see any home user really using virtualization anytime soon. Vista Home is by no mean a poweruser-oriented edition of Vista, and including virtualization support would probably be worthless since most home users are not going to use it anyway.

Reply Score: 2

Software Conflicts
by tpaws on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:12 UTC
tpaws
Member since:
2006-06-02

Virtualization is not 'mature' enough for WGA.

Reply Score: 4

Anyway, who does really need Vista?
by ebasconp on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:20 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

Hi:

With this kind of attitudes, Microsoft is getting isolated from the community.

I feel the people is getting tired and tired of its arrogance, its business model and its way of "protecting the customer" with a lot of prohibitions. Maybe it's offtopic, but the MS model is the same model that the US goverment uses with us, the small countries, to "protecting" us: blocking our economies, saying what to do and what not to do, etc.

Let's move to BSDs, OpenSolaris and/or Linux; OSes in power of the community and being developed by the community.

Reply Score: 5

poohgee Member since:
2005-08-13

+1 back to at least 0

A pro or neutral MS comment is not off-topic .
If people dont like the opinion put up arguments against it instead of modding down .

IMO some people round here - I guess especially since the MS / NOVL deal - are modding comments which are not bashing MS down to vent their anger etc .

BTW I also dislike MS but also agree that some people really HATE Microsoft especially with recent developments .

Just IMO ;)

Reply Score: 4

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I modded him down not because of his opinion, but because I find it offensive that he writes everyone's opinions off as simply "unfounded hatred of Microsoft." There's a difference between constructive, substantiated criticism and unfounded hatred which ronaldst is apparently oblivious to. And IMHO, while there may be some people on this site who do in fact HATE Microsoft unequivocally, they probably have a good reason for it.

(P.S. I don't hate Microsoft all the time--just every time they announce one of these boneheaded decisions. If you were to look at all my posts for the past year, you'd see that my MS posts were quite neutral and/or positive up until the last month....)

Reply Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

There is no hatred in his post. Just critizism.
Just find one thing is his post that is hatred.

I know you're a microserf, but keep the level down. Zealots are so annoying for the rest of us.

Actually, a few hours ago I attended a lecture given by a MS-representative (I came home 30 minutes ago). He was more critical towards certain features in Vista, than I've ever been against MS.

Was this MS-representive a MS-hater, too?

Reply Score: 3

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

"people getting tired and tired of its arrogance"

That sounds like reasonably critique of Microsoft. It's not unfounded hatred. The fact that MS claims their customers don't understand the risks of running VM's is enough for me to consider MS an arrogant company. Not to mention the statements from Ballmer.

Windows 2003 Server is a great OS in my opinion - but the Microsoft-management is obnoxius.

Reply Score: 1

Gotta love the last paragraph...
by Brendan on Fri 24th Nov 2006 13:24 UTC
Brendan
Member since:
2005-11-16

"Customers and partners have been very clear that a closed system based on licensing restrictions, that locks customers into one vendor's products and formats is not acceptable, and we look forward to Microsoft changing its published guidelines," he added.

It makes me wonder why VMware's vice president is so confident that Microsoft will be changing it's published guidelines... :-)

Reply Score: 1

chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

It makes me wonder why VMware's vice president is so confident that Microsoft will be changing it's published guidelines... :-)

Could that be something to do with anti-trust laws ;-)

Reply Score: 1

Absolutely
by Sphinx on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:29 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

The danger of users running and discovering other os's through virtualization and finding out the truth for themselves are far too great.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Absolutely
by Havin_it on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:34 UTC in reply to "Absolutely"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Sorry, but that makes no sense. The restriction is on using Vista home versions as a virtualized 'Guest' OS. There's nothing to stop users creating VMs of other OSes with Vista Home as a host. If you're looking to run Vista as a guest OS, that typically means you already have another OS as host, so that horse has bolted hasn't it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Absolutely
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Absolutely"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

This is no about restricting the use of Vista in a VM. This is about Microsoft claiming a VM is a great risk (at least if the VM is not from MS), and about Microsoft calling its customers for morons.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Absolutely
by Havin_it on Sat 25th Nov 2006 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Absolutely"
Havin_it Member since:
2006-03-10

Nonsense, the article is about both those things -- the one is their rationalisation for the other. The GP appeared to me to be referring to the restriction, not to MS's customer generalisations that they use to justify it.

The other point raised in the article (to which you seem to be referring in a confused way) is that MS are supporting VM usage of certain of their products such as Visual Studio only within MS VMs -- another restriction.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Absolutely
by dylansmrjones on Sat 25th Nov 2006 00:08 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Absolutely"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, I didn't and still don't read his post that way. But let it be.

Apart from that your reply is quite offensive - but let it be as well.

Reply Score: 2

However, is it really legally binding?
by alcibiades on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:47 UTC
alcibiades
Member since:
2005-10-12

You can obviously be enjoined from running two copies at once, even if they are on the same machine. However, if you buy a copy and then install it on the VM, and if it runs, you have probably not violated any binding agreement. Because, as we keep saying, post-sales restrictions on use are not enforceable in the EU.

They could take technical measures to stop it running, they can void your warranty if you run it on the 'wrong' stuff, they can exempt themselves from liability, but almost certainly there is no legal reason why you can be penalized for running your one copy on anything, including a VM, that it will technically run on.

The same likely applies to a retail copy of OSX, regardless of what the Eula says. And the same probably applies to a copy of Office running under Wine.

Reply Score: 4

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I do believe that "no warranty" is a clause in every EULA since the beginning of human kind...

Reply Score: 1

Mature?
by vermaden on Fri 24th Nov 2006 14:52 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

I dont think that ANY of Microsoft products is 'Mature' for Consumers.

On the other hand Microsoft Consumers are not 'Mature'. ;)

Reply Score: 2

What a shock!
by cmost on Fri 24th Nov 2006 15:22 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

Hmmm, Microsoft is deciding for users what is best for them; for their own good. Gee Microsoft, I think I can decide for myself what i'm capable of doing on my OWN computer. That's why I don't run Microsoft crapware. None of it is mature enough for me.

Edited 2006-11-24 15:23

Reply Score: 1

iSteve
Member since:
2005-12-31

I completely agree. I would also suggest Microsoft not to provide Internet Explorer and Outlook Express to the end (home) users, as they, too, can pose a threat if not properly handled. Every application to be run should be specifically registered, through Microsoft hotline (only in USA, West coast, operational from 10:00 to 16:00) so that each can be checked properly for it's functionality and validity.

Also, every Windows Vista box should contain a free pack of diapers. Authorised Microsoft technicians are obliged to have several packs of those in their vans in case the customers run out and are in emergency.

Reply Score: 5

Do We Care
by ma_d on Fri 24th Nov 2006 16:07 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

If they're going to use the EULA to stop us do we care? Does anyone actually read or follow the EULA to the "T"? No.

It seems to me that this restriction is bunk. Since when can a software license restrict what machinery you can run it on? The processor number limitation has to do with how the software itself is designed, but the virtual machine stuff doesn't (for the client system).

So, I say, who cares: Do it anyway.

Reply Score: 1

Streamlining the OS.
by Dark_Knight on Fri 24th Nov 2006 16:17 UTC
Dark_Knight
Member since:
2005-07-10

It appears Microsoft is attempting to lower bloat by streamlining Windows Vista based on who is purchasing the OS. Makes sense, though in this case I don't believe it's a good marketing decision. My reasoning is because of the fact that Linux is gaining a stronger foothold in the market, not only in the Enterprise (ie: businesses, schools, government, etc) but also Private (ie: Home users). Distributions such as SUSE Linux, Mandriva Linux and even Linspire are offering better flexibility and ease of use whether you're new to computers or a Geek. Consumers are becoming more aware of the differences between Windows and Linux OS and what each developer is offering both in features and cost. For the price Microsoft is planning to sell Windows Vista Home it should include more out of the box than was previously offered with Windows XP Home. Offering less than Microsoft's competitors is just going to make consumers question whether it's really necessary to purchase Windows Vista when lower cost alternatives are available.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Streamlining the OS.
by Moochman on Fri 24th Nov 2006 20:28 UTC in reply to "Streamlining the OS."
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

I truly hate to rain on your parade, since I agree with everything you say, but most consumers I've met who aren't geeks don't know what Linux is, and the few who have heard of it generally don't know anything beyond the name (or maybe they have used it on a public terminal and think Linux equates with a frustrating and/or limited experience). Linux won't start eating into MS's consumer market share until it starts getting preinstalled on the retail boxes.

My personal favored solution would be a hardware maker that focuses exclusively on developing its own version of Linux, much like Apple has developed Mac OS. With the level of support and smoothness such a product could bring to the table, I think we could see a true paradigm shift in computing.

Second-most-favored-option (the easier route): Install a current distro, but make sure it works seamlessly with the hardware (this is particularly important for laptops, what with flawless support for Suspend-to-RAM and power management being an absolute must). So far, Lenovo is the only major PC maker to take it that far. But with more and more small hardware makers jumping on board, (e.g. http://lxer.com/module/db/viewby.php?uid=120&sort=120&offset=0&dbn=... ) I think we're just seeing the beginning...

Edited 2006-11-24 20:30

Reply Score: 1

Customer support.
by Michael on Fri 24th Nov 2006 16:24 UTC
Michael
Member since:
2005-07-01

OK, hands up who wants to be on the end of the phone when Joe consumer has some problem with his virtualized copy of Vista cheapo edition? You don't give immature software to anybody without a good reason, and the only people crying out for this are Linux hobbyists. Last time I looked, we weren't on the top of Microsoft's Christmas-card list. (I think we were one above the EU ;)

Reply Score: 3

good joke
by roger64 on Fri 24th Nov 2006 16:28 UTC
roger64
Member since:
2006-08-15

after the FUD about Linux, now comes the joke. Ballmer, help me, is a cartoon character?

It's two times funny, because Microsoft does not intend at all to be believed. Just posturing in case of trouble from officials for abusive Vista contract about selective virtualisation.

Father, look at your left, father, look at your right..In the end the good and valiant king was nevertheless taken prisoner (or killed), anyway, he LOST. It will happen to Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

IIS
by p13. on Fri 24th Nov 2006 17:08 UTC
p13.
Member since:
2005-07-10

Maybe they should ship the server editions with a big red sticker that says:

"WARNING: This bundle contains our IIS software and unless you invest heavily in security through taking our courses and exams, you should not run this."

We all know plenty of systems get pwned all the time, and they are run by "qualified" MCSE folks.

Screw you MS, we can make up our own minds, TYVM !

- Kevin

Reply Score: 4

v RE: IIS
by NotParker on Fri 24th Nov 2006 17:32 UTC in reply to "IIS"
RE: IIS
by BluenoseJake on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:33 UTC in reply to "IIS"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

if you're talking about IIS 5.x, sure, I'll give you that, but IIS 6.0 is quite secure, right out of the box, and IIS 7.0 is supposed to be better (though I am waiting to see if that is true, I'm no blind fanboy)

Reply Score: 1

Is this an issue to most of you?
by snowflake on Fri 24th Nov 2006 17:38 UTC
snowflake
Member since:
2005-07-20

>Why pay for something that's been available for more
>than a decade in several different implementations?

So what's the problem for you? You probably use one of the several different alternatives. This sounds like (as with most who've posted hereon this topic) a non-issue to you.

Reply Score: 1

Out of Business.
by MikeekiM on Fri 24th Nov 2006 17:52 UTC
MikeekiM
Member since:
2005-11-16

Just another reason the MS business model needs to be put out of business. Customers come last.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Out of Business.
by NotParker on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:08 UTC in reply to "Out of Business."
Weird
by hussam on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:08 UTC
hussam
Member since:
2006-08-17

I don't understand. How come running an OS in a virtual machine with no risk of affecting the host OS risky?

Reply Score: 1

MS Support not mature enough for VM
by gilA on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:09 UTC
gilA
Member since:
2006-02-09

They don't want to get support calls from stupid users who try VM and f it up.

Reply Score: 1

Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"They don't want to get support calls from stupid users who try VM and f it up."

I don't think that is an explaination. Users who are intelligent enough to know what a VM is and what (and how) to use it won't even consider calling MICROS~1 support; they are smart enough to solve their problems. And Steven Q. Stupid won't want to use a VM anyway because he has no clue about it.

Finally I'd like to say that most MICROS~1 users, stupid or not, won't care what the EULA says. They will not even read it. So they simply do what they want (as they did all the years before) and MICROS~1 can't do anything against it - at least at this point of time. So it's completely irrelevant what the end user is allowed to do and what he's not allowed to do.

This may change in some years, when every user's mouse clicks have to be permitted by the MICROS~1 MASTER CONTROL PROGRAM (MS-MCP.EXE)... :-)

Reply Score: 1

Home User risk to me
by CrazyDude0 on Fri 24th Nov 2006 18:31 UTC
CrazyDude0
Member since:
2005-07-10

I feel that Virtual Machines are unsafe too because deleting a VMDK is quite easy as compared to wiping the whole OS. The fact that my whole data and OS is in one file makes me feel uneasy enough that i wouldn't use it on my home PC.

I do still use VM for developing software but never as the primary OS.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Home User risk to me
by dylansmrjones on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:01 UTC in reply to "Home User risk to me"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

*begin stupid joke*
I feel that Microsoft Office is unsafe too because deleting a DOC file is quite easy as compared to wiping the whole OS. The fact that my whole document is in one file makes me feel uneasy enough that I wouldn't use it on my home PC.

I do still use Microsoft Office for creating power point presentations - but never as my primary office suite.
*end stupid joke*

As person clever enough to know what a VM is isn't stupid enough to delete a VMDK and emptying the recycle bin - without being sure he/she wants to delete that file.

OTOH you don't use a VM to host important data. You use it for development and for testing. Nobody would use a VM as a primary OS at home.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Home User risk to me
by cmost on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:04 UTC in reply to "Home User risk to me"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

"I feel that Virtual Machines are unsafe too because deleting a VMDK is quite easy as compared to wiping the whole OS."

Perhaps you should be more careful when you're deleting files on your hard disk. Personally, I keep all of my virtual machine files on a separate hard drive purchased for that reason. I also keep them very organized according to OS name and version. I mirror this drive to an external backup for portability and safety. I've never accidently deleted a virtual machine...ever.

Personally, virtual machines, if implemented properly and designed to be fairly user-friendly, are perfect for home users. On delicate Windows machines, which are prone to infection by malicious software of every description, web browsers and file-sharing software should alawys be run in a virtualized environment (preferably one immune to most malware - I won't name names). This way, if malware comes knocking, the damage is confined to the VM (which is backed up regularly of course for easy restoration later.)

If Microsoft wants to treat its users like idiots, then they'll act like idiots.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Home User risk to me
by Doc Pain on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Home User risk to me"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"If Microsoft wants to treat its users like idiots, then they'll act like idiots."

And they make money with it. Remember: Anything that is considered "idiot proof" will be used by idiots only. :-)

Bit I agree with you: VMs may be a good solution for some home users due to their particular problems, if they find someone who installs and maintains their VM stuff. So why should that be forbitten?

(One could argue that according to security issues it would be better NOT to use MICROS~1 products, but that should not be the topic at this time.)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Home User risk to me
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 26th Nov 2006 04:03 UTC in reply to "Home User risk to me"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What's with you kids today, have you never heard of Ghost? ;)

Edited 2006-11-26 04:06

Reply Score: 1

So...
by behemot on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:09 UTC
behemot
Member since:
2005-11-14

MS must not release Vista, Windows is not mature enough for the end user.

Reply Score: 2

licensing
by jimveta on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:40 UTC
jimveta
Member since:
2006-09-21

So how will the licensing work with VMs? Is software that is installed in each domain/VM treated as two seperate installations? How about instances of the OS running each domain/VM?

Reply Score: 1

If you don't like it, don't use it ...
by MacTO on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:45 UTC
MacTO
Member since:
2006-09-21

Nobody is forcing you to use Microsoft products, and there are plenty of alternatives on the market. Most of those alternatives even try to be compatible with Microsoft file formats, network protocols, file systems, and such. As for those of you who insist that you have to use Windows for work: you either aren't the decision maker (so don't worry about it), or it is the cost of doing business (though you can mitigate those costs by using alternatives when the option exists).

Oh, and there is one option that falls somewhere inbetween not using Microsoft and using Microsoft: using their products, but not upgrading unless it is necessary. If you did some research, you would probably be surprised at how much software still worked under Windows NT (which is over a decade old), and the situation is even better for 2000. Office 2003 uses the same file format as Office '97, and so forth.

For what it's worth, I did decide to "bite the bullet" and buy XP, even though my gut feelings told me that activation was a bad idea. My gut feeling turned out right: my copy of XP no longer activates (likely because I twiddle with hardware and operating systems too much).

Yeah, I know that I can call Microsoft up and clear the issue up (temporarily), but I don't like it as a matter of principle. After all, you bet there would be an outcry if people had to get authorization from the manufacturer to muck around with a physical commodity. But this funny culture has grown up around software where it is acceptable.

Browser: ELinks/0.11.1 (textmode; NetBSD 2.1.0_STABLE alpha; 80x25-2)

Reply Score: 1

iSteve Member since:
2005-12-31

I'm not entirely convinced you're following the point. I am entirely convinced most of the OSNews readers are aware of the vast alternatives to most of the computing done on Windows.

The outrage is focused on the obviously artifical limitation in order to significantly pad revenues and taking the end user for a complete idiot by both doing this and by giving such an explanation, which is indeed an offense to intelect and capabilities of the end user [such as they are, of course:)]

Before anyone starts to argue that the end user is -- or may be -- in fact an idiot; I'm not going into such an argument, I would only point out that there are far more serious risks to soundness of Windows than running them in virtual environmnent, a feature most end users who fall into the category of 'idiot' probably never heard of or never considered for themselves in the first place...

Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060809 Debian/1.7.13-0.3

Reply Score: 1

biggest...
by historyb on Fri 24th Nov 2006 19:48 UTC
historyb
Member since:
2005-07-06

piece of bull hockey I've heard. Just more ways MS tries to dupe people into paying more and FUD spreading is so fun for MS anyway. golly

Edited 2006-11-24 19:51

Reply Score: 2

Edward
Member since:
2005-09-17

Really MS just becaue someone somewhere useing Windows might be a complete computer noob, doesn't mean we all are.

Reply Score: 1

Lots of Apache cultists I assume
by NotParker on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:16 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

I assume I got modded down to -4 because of all the Apache cultists?

Maybe they should ship the server editions with a big red sticker that says:

"WARNING: This bundle contains our IIS software and unless you invest heavily in security through taking our courses and exams, you should not run this."


IIS6 is very secure. Apache needs the warning.

36 vulnerabilities Apache 2.x
http://secunia.com/product/73/
http://secunia.com/product/9633/

3 vulnerabilites for IIS6
http://secunia.com/product/1438/

Reply Score: 0

Cultists hate Novell cutomers I guess
by NotParker on Fri 24th Nov 2006 23:18 UTC
NotParker
Member since:
2006-06-01

Modded down to -4 just because I point out the hypocrisy of hating Novell and its customer?

Just another reason the MS business model needs to be put out of business. Customers come last.

Like the cult cares about Novell customers. All they care about is pleasing the high priests of the cult.

Reply Score: 0

Excuses...
by the__dude on Sat 25th Nov 2006 20:17 UTC
the__dude
Member since:
2006-02-27

This is a pretty lame excuse by MS...

On the other hand, I have a feeling 98% of the consumers that use the two versions of Vista in question dont even know what virtualization is...

Reply Score: 1

they should come up with better excuses
by MaxxTotal on Mon 27th Nov 2006 03:31 UTC
MaxxTotal
Member since:
2006-02-08

Ha..... Consumers know nuts about the tons of security issues with Windows and IE, so why not exclude them from home users?

Reply Score: 1

No Vista VM? No problem.
by explainer on Tue 28th Nov 2006 23:26 UTC
explainer
Member since:
2006-11-28

After using MS operating systems for years, I am now a happy user of Ubuntu 6.10. I have employed VMware so that I can maintain a mixed network of both Windows 2000 and Linux systems. After some initial confusion, I now have all my systems in the LAN sharing file volumes with one another (some linx ext3, some window ntfs, all accessed remotely as smbfs automounts. The HP printer attached to a W2k machine is accessible to all the other systems.

For me, the future is Linux.

I am resigned to keeping some windows boxes running. Given the market dominance of MS, I know that I will still have to occasionally access that brain-dead website that only works with Internet Explorer (Lenovo website, we know who you are.)

Reply Score: 1