More wierd decisions coming from Redmond

EH!?

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/02/07/microsoft-slugs-mac-users-with-vista-tax/

I would have though a sale was a sale? I cant see many mac users wanting it in the first place let alone paying extra, as not many users in their right mind would prefer to use it over OSX anyway unless they absolutely had to (dev etc).

That blog has an extremely pro-Mac bias, I think Microsoft can choose which of it's OS's it thinks are ok to use under virtualisation and which aren’t. The reason for that decision (which is just assumed to be negative in the blog) could even actually be benign as in those versions are missing components needed to work in a virtualisation environment.

I think calling it a "tax" is misleading and the article has no balance.

Darkheart

I think Mac users have it coming after Apple decided to insult PC users in every single commercial.

true and true :/

Still think its a bit odd though. Of course they should be alowed to block this if they want but it just seems a wierd business choice unless im missing something, mac users would still need to buy a license, but paying even more for an already overpriced system will put them off using it altogether.

It's a bit out-of-context: It's not just the mac -- the same 'expensive version only' clause applies to running Vista inside *any* virtual machine environment, including VMWare / Virtual PC on a windows PC.

You can still get the basic version of Vista and boot your mac into it through bootcamp, but if you emulate it through parrallels (or a PC with VMWare) then you need the premium version.

I realise that too, its just the article was about macs so the topic was maciscized :)

Im guessing this applies to all Virtuals. I guess MS dont want people seeing their system as another systems "Bi.ch".

I don't get his argument.

Anyone care to explain how I can run any edition of OSX within the terms of it's licence on my PC, virtualised or otherwise?

At least mac users (and Linux,BSD,Windows,OS/2) have an option with vista (albiet at extra cost). Besides, any edition (should) run using bootcamp and not violate any licence terms.

(Some) mac users realy have a chip on their shoulder.

Who, me or the guy who wrote the article, if you mean me, im not arguing anything except i think its an odd decision, i dont care if windows doesnt run on a mac, i dont even own one or use vista in a VM, so it doesnt bother me, im just wondering why they would pass up the oportunity to get more licence sales. If you mean the article guy then yes he is being very negatively biased.

You cant, but thats in some ways "understandable" as they want to sell you their hardware too (ie, why would you want to buy mac hardware when you can run leopard on the cheaper and more abundant PC hardware?).

MS on the other hand sell no hardware (apart from some peripheral nicknacks) so have nothing to loose in that department.

"Anyone care to explain how I can run any edition of OSX within the terms of it's licence on my PC, virtualised or otherwise?"

"You cant"
D4NM4N is right about that, the license agreement for leopard clearly states....

You agree not to install, use or run Apple Software on any "non-Apple labeled computer", or to enable other to do so. This license does "not allow" the Apple Software to exist "on more than one computer at a time", and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computers at the same time.

The server license of Mac OS X is similar. Here's a link about VM and Mac OS X licensing. http://db.tidbits.com/article/9277

And as I use Vista as well as XP. I wouldn't use any thing less the Business Edition of Vista and the Professional version of XP ( two of the machines I have run the Ultimate edition one runs XP Pro ), as have the tools to manipulatate system security with ease, you can do this with the lesser OS's but it means a lot of messing with the registry.

It's still allowed to use Vista via Bootcamp. Anyway: you're not allowed to use OSX on any machine other than Macs regardless of how you try to do it. If you put it that way Microsoft still allows you to do more with Windows than Apple allows you to do with OSX.

"Anyway: you're not allowed to use OSX on any machine other than Macs regardless of how you try to do it"

If you could use Mac OS X on any other PC, people would be stuffing MS Windows up Bill Gates a*se. Just look at the price diference for a start.

You can with MacOS X Server. However the Vista deal is still a better deal than what Apple offers.

$100 every year just for updates is not cheap. How much did you pay for XP? A one-time price of $100? How much have you paid for the many, many releases of OS X? $400? Stuff it, Windows is still cheaper.

I'm not really sure thats legal here; MS have the right to protect their OS and prevent copying etc. but other than that its up to the user what they want to do with something they've bought.

FlameDuck, no, you cannot use Mac OS X Server on non-Apple hardware. You are now only allowed to virtualize it -- but it still must be run on Apple hardware.

Anyway, the original article is a bit over the edge. An OEM version of Vista Ultimate Edition now costs around 153 Euros on Amazon, the Business Edition, which can be virtualized, is available for around 120 Euros.

And here is the reason why people would use Windows over OS X: I hate to admit it, but Intel Macs run more reliable -- and FASTER -- with Windows XP than they do with Mac OS X Tiger or Leopard.

OS X/PPC is a different story; it's still more mature and robust than the Intel version, even with Leopard.

Intel Leopard might be slightly faster than Vista, but it certainly is not more stable and its usability is certainly not higher than that of Vista. Apple did a lot of things wrong in Leopard, but so did Microsoft in Vista.

In the end, it's the applications for the Mac that are usually more fun to use and also better designed than their Windows counterparts/competition. The platform itself... Well.

OS X sucks in a business/enterprise environment, but scores in the SOHO market; browsing small networks is ridiculously simple with Leopard.

If you don't want to code in Objective-C, OS X just sucks as a programming platform. Apple doesn't care for Java, and currently nobody can tell how long their recently found "love" for Python and Ruby will last. Judging from their affair with Java, it won't be long: Apple suffers from the "not invented here" syndrome.

If you're a gamer, OS X is not for you, either.

If you need to do CAD or business-oriented software: Forget the Mac. The standard software is not available.

After 2.5 years with Macs, my euphoria has finally worn off and reality moved back in. I've invested a lot in that platform, so I will stick to it. At least partly. My next machine might be a Mac Pro, because Aperture still is a killer argument for me. But it is also possible that I will simply keep on using my current Macs with the software that I bought for it and get an additional fat PC for everything else. Seeing that I can get a real beast of a PC for around 1300 Euros that could put a 2500 Euros Mac Pro in serious trouble, this might be a no-brainer. On the other hand, I'm really into design and prefer silent machines with reduced power consumption. Apple sells these. So it might still be the much more expensive Mac Pro in the end (in a triple boot setup). We'll see.

That article show that the guy cant understand how things works. By just reading the differences in the "basic" and "enterprise" editions, you see the difference: in the basic version they don't allow you to install Vista on Virtual Machines; int the enterprise you can - but you still "can't play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology"

So, Microsoft figured that through virtualization someone could break their DRM tech, and only allowed corporations (or someone who would by the OS by a very high price) to do it. Maybe this is just some legal thing - mainly because if someone wants to break the DRM, they wouldnt care about an software agreement on the first place.

This is just another reason why DRM should be eliminated from the face of the Earth - but nothing "against" any OS/plataform, be it Mac, Linux, or even Windows itself :P~

@Danman Sorry guy, I meant the writer of the article.



Only Microsoft truely knows their motives. Like it or not, It's up to them what platforms and hosts they support at the price-level they decide. This is as "understandable" as Apple's licencing model.

This is not an attack on/ appology for either company it's an attack on this FUD ridden, sensationalist "we're so persecuted' article. It has cost me 10 minutes of my life that I want back.

It's bollocks anyway, if you read the last bit it says you're free to boot into any vista you like on a mac, you just cant run it on an emulator.