Microsoft Flip-flopping on Virtualization License 304
Cole writes "Microsoft came within a few hours of reversing its EULA-based ban on the virtualization of Vista Basic and Premium, only to cancel the announcement at the last minute. The company reached out to media and bloggers about the announcement and was ready to celebrate "user choice" before pulling the plug, apparently clinging to security excuses. From the article, "The threat of hypervisor malware affects Ultimate and Business editions just as much as Home Premium and Basic. As such, the only logical explanation is that Microsoft is using pricing to discourage users from virtualizing those OSes. Since when is a price tag an effective means of combating malware?" Something else must be going on here."
I'm not sure I fully understand the article (Score:3, Interesting)
Why bother? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It's obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
No kidding. (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing that's going on is market segmentation [wikipedia.org]. To put it briefly: Microsoft reckons that those customers who are likely to want to run Vista in a virtual environment have got the money to buy a more expensive version. It's the exact same principle as is used for pricing some commercial databases according to "number of CPUs in the system which is going to be running it" - anyone who's got the money to buy and the need to run a 16-processor system can probably afford to spend more on the database, regardless of whether there's any technical difference between the 16 processor version and the 8 processor version of the software.
Apple doesn't even give you the choice (Score:5, Interesting)
And no, I am not a MS fanboy. I've been using Linux for more then ten years almost exclusively. Lack of hassle with licensing issues being one of the reasons for my choice of OS.
Re:Why bother? (Score:3, Interesting)
In my case, I have a dell axim x51v. Beautiful VGA screen, but I need outlook & activesync to get data on and off it easily as its windows mobile 5.
I use linux on most of my servers, but there's still the odd desktop app that keeps me tied to windows. Virtualization allows me to run that handful of apps while stick to linux for my main desktop. In this role though, windows XP is more than adequate. Vista would be a complete waste of resources. Still, there will come a day when microsoft kill XP, via incompatibility or just end of patches.
Re:Losing their platform (Score:3, Interesting)
My guess is that they're stalling for time while getting a TPM savvy hypervisor in boot ROM. Antitrust authorities wouldn't be amused by this, hence the handwaving about malware.
What many commentators miss is that you're free to install your one copy of Vista in a VM, Microsoft can't stop you from doing that. The EULA (poorly worded as it is) only restricts (or permits) running multiple virtualized copies from the one license.
Re:Market Segmentation (Score:3, Interesting)
And Microsoft aren't the only current practitioners either! (I note Oracle has something which is called a "Restricted Use" license).
Sesostris III
Re:The Mac Threat (Score:2, Interesting)
Switchers pose a problem for Microsoft, because most anecdotal evidence and many studies show that switchers don't switch back to Windows. Now before you bash me as an Apple fanboi, consider this: most people who leave Windows are looking for an out due to frustration.
I'll give you evidence for the contrary. In 1999 I was fully Linux, I switched from Windows because my laptop was too low spec and Windows ran bad, and Linux ran well. In december 2001, I switched from Linux to a fancy new iBook G3 running OS X and was very very happy. Alas, this was an iBook that presented the dreaded logic board failure and after a mere 3 years, it manifested. Just right after the extended warranty (because of the known problem) had expired. This of course, happened just after the announcement that Apple was switching to Intel. So buying a new iBook was not an option.
I bought a second hand P-III 600MHz/512Meg RAM for 100€ and used it until it physically started to fall apart. This machine ran Win XP Pro and ran it well. Beginning this year, I replaced it (I mentioned that it physcially started to fall apart) and I didn't even consider an iBook since they were over 1100€ and I could get a (lower, but still fine) specced laptop for 800€ with Win XP Media Center. Now, the idea is to run Linux on it eventually, but I'm married and haven't got the same kind of spare time as I did back in 2000....
So, there you go: a back-switcher. That said, I know how to secure and harden Windows machines. My machines never have problems, bar of course hardware problems... but even Apple isn't immune to that.
How long until... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Losing their platform (Score:2, Interesting)
It's not the hardware, either. Ubuntu (which I am trying to migrate towards) is lightning fast on the same machine.
Plus the general user is going to continually fall over permissions issues. Sometime I am refused permission to move a folder from one place in my Documents folder to another.
Of course, eventally these things will be ironed out, but by then it may be too late. Competition is much stiffer now.
Re:Losing their platform (Score:2, Interesting)
I was one of the people ranting that Win2000 was better than WinXP. The only thing I have found in a home environment that makes WinXP better than Win2000 is the welcome screen and that multiple users can be logged in at once. That was the reason I went to WinXP. There are some other nifty things like remote desktop and so, but they hardly matter for Joe Home User. The difference between Win2000 vs. WinXP and WinXP vs. WinVista is that a machine that ran Win2000 just fine, usually had no problems with WinXP. WinXP didn't need a fancy graphics card, nor did it require a very strong CPU, it just required memory, lots of it, especially after SP2.
Case in point: my former laptop was a P-III 600MHz/512Meg. When I bought it (second hand) it only featured 256Meg RAM and ran Windows 2000 without a hitch. I have run WinXP without service pack on similar machines without a problem. SP2 upped the requirements a bit and was slow (but still acceptable with 256Meg), so I added another 256Meg which made it run like a champ for anything I had to do at the time. Do you even imaging running Vista on it? I doubt it, yet, it runs WinXP SP2 just fine!
Heck, the laptop that replaced it is an AMD Turion X2 TL-50/1Gig laptop and it rated a mere "Vista Capable". That laptop was bought in January (on sale, I admit) You can't tell me that it isn't a modern machine. It is, but it lacks the graphics oompha to be Vista Approved (or whatever they call it)
That's the difference.... WinXP ran on Win2000 hardware with minor upgrades. WinVista versus WinXP is a whole other tale.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Lame (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm not sure I fully understand the article (Score:1, Interesting)
DRM Thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Allowing home editions of Vista to be run in Virtual Machines would essentially make the DRM protection in Vista useless.
Let 'em shoot themselves the foot (Score:5, Interesting)
So leave Gates and Co alone. I don't want them to allow virtualization. It will make my job a whole lot easier.
Re:Losing their platform (Score:3, Interesting)
Can anyone corroborate this?
Or, even better, is the EULA available online somewhere where I could verify this statement for myself?
Re:It's obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Make it nice and expensive to obtain the credentials, or just use a clever licence agreement and that'll certainly stop the pesky open-source kids from meddling. The best thing is, if the DoJ decide to take an interest, MS can tell them that it's necessary for security.
I really can see Windows going the same as some console platforms. Either you make your software with permission or you don't do it at all.
Size Matters? (Score:3, Interesting)
Which, (assuming sarcasm on your part), wouldn't rule out the virtualisation restrictions being a contributory factory in to poor vista sales. I think we can take the poor sales as a given - if vista was flying off the shelves, MS wouldn't trouble with a "fact rich" campaign to persuade potential customers to "proceed with confidence". Whether or not sales is the same thing as popularity is another question, although Microsoft fans don't usually have a problem with the notion when contrasting Windows against Linux.
But let's not get sidetracked. Even if virtualisation isn't causing Vista's sales problems, it could still be seen as doing so, internally. For that matter, if MS were going to relent a little on the more controversial features of Vista, they're more likely to give ground over virtualisation than they are to back pedal over DRM, for example. And there's probably nothing they can do at this late stage about the hardware issues. So if they were inclined to throw the potential buyer a bone, it would pretty much have to be over virtualisation.
Maybe that's what happened here. One faction was all set to change the EULA in the (perhaps slightly desperate) hope of kick-starting a wave of Vista adoption. Then someone else comes along and says "it's OK - we'll fix it in advertising" and the change got withdrawn. In some ways, this seems the simplest explanation.
And if advertising fails to fix the sales problem, we may yet see the licence restriction withdrawn.
So really, I don't think the size of the virtualisation market much matters when it comes to forcing MS' hand in this case. Because I think the pressure is coming from within. I think MS are well aware that it isn't going to address most potential buyers concerns, but I don't think that matters. Ten years and billions of dollars have been spent, and careers will be on the line over this. I think some folks at MS are starting to clutch at straws. Virtualisation must look very tempting to them.
Re:shady marketing technique (Score:3, Interesting)
Without perfect price discrimination there will still be some deadweight loss from a monopoly. However, competition is almost never perfect either. Moreover, if a market is a natural monopoly, then the most effective use of resources is the case of a single producer, i.e. a monopolist. Beyond the wastefulness of having multiple producers in such a market, there may be potential gains in terms of technological progress, because a monopoly can use its supernormal profit to invest in research which may be beneficial overall, but would not be viable for a firm facing competitors that would also benefit from it. Technological progress is what drives economic growth in the long run, so this is an important issue.
Mind you, Windows is not a monopoly in strict economic terms, even if its dominance is high enough to produce many of the same effects.
IE7 (Score:3, Interesting)
Web developers (developers, developers) without a Windows box cannot test websites for IE. And given IE's track record with standards compliance, this is not a good situation for Microsoft. I'm not buying a whole Windows box just to test websites in their crummy browser.
Re:Size Matters? (Score:4, Interesting)
Which, (assuming sarcasm on your part), wouldn't rule out the virtualisation restrictions being a contributory factory in to poor vista sales.
Certainly. However, I think it's safe to assume - as my sarcasm intended - that EULA-limited virtualisation is only something a tiny minority of users would take into account.
(Especially since a quite reasonable interpretation of the EULA doesn't prevent you from, say, virtualising a copy of Vista on your Mac running OS X - ie: the most common end-user virtualisation scenario.)
I think we can take the poor sales as a given - if vista was flying off the shelves, MS wouldn't trouble with a "fact rich" campaign to persuade potential customers to "proceed with confidence". Whether or not sales is the same thing as popularity is another question, although Microsoft fans don't usually have a problem with the notion when contrasting Windows against Linux.
As with Office, Microsoft's biggest competitor to Vista is Windows XP. Vista sales are slow not because it is "bad", but because XP is well and truly "good enough". Hence, the take-up rate of Vista is basically that of new/replacement PC sales.
But let's not get sidetracked. Even if virtualisation isn't causing Vista's sales problems, it could still be seen as doing so, internally. For that matter, if MS were going to relent a little on the more controversial features of Vista, they're more likely to give ground over virtualisation than they are to back pedal over DRM, for example. And there's probably nothing they can do at this late stage about the hardware issues. So if they were inclined to throw the potential buyer a bone, it would pretty much have to be over virtualisation.
Not really much of a bone. The proportion of customers such an annoucement would sway is miniscule by any reasonable argument. I don't think even the craziest of sales droids believe that a meaningful (hell, even statistically valid) portion of their userbase is holding back because of perceived problems with virtualising certain versions of Vista.