New Vista License Terms Impede Mac Users (or any virtual environment)

bwana

bwana

MyBroadband
Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
97,640
Reaction score
37,752
Location
Plz
Maybe being anal is M$oft's forte but why be so restrictive?
Microsoft has published the planned licensing terms for Windows Vista. As reported on the HardMac forums, the version-specific addendums contain clauses that specifically address usage of Vista in a virtualized environment. For both Home Basic and Home Premium editions, they state that "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system." For other editions, such use is permitted but restricted:
You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.
​
I encourage anyone considering Vista to go read the whole EULA. These are not the only obnoxious clauses, just the ones that are especially relevant to Mac users.
Click to expand...
As seen on Digg.com
 
I don't think anyone really cares about this.
Its pretty much unenforceable and I'm not planning on spending any money on Vista anyway, certainly not as a second OS - just too damn expensive.
Most of the corporates I work with are not even beginning to talk about migrating either.
All the IT departments have been told to start thinking about desktop OS replacements as well as Vista.
 
On a twit.tv podcast there was debate that each vista was pc specific so you as an owner could only install one copy on one machine!
 
BobJones said:
I don't think anyone really cares about this.
Click to expand...
Er - I do. :confused:

Plenty of people will be upgrading or wanting to run in a virtualised environment* now that they're so well supported. New generations of Mac users would also want to use Vista with bootcamp, parallels, or however Leopard supports it. After all, one of Mac's top selling points is versatility these days so being able to run Vista, legally, might be relevant dont you think?

*There was a great series of Security Now episodes concerning virtualisation.
 
My point was really that if you were buying a retail pack of Vista to run in bootcamp or parallels or whatever VM, that there is no real way for MS to stop you.

Seems from the comments on digg that the clause is *supposed* to stop you from running vista on a boot drive and on a VM... tho there appears to be some confusion.
 
BobJones said:
My point was really that if you were buying a retail pack of Vista to run in bootcamp or parallels or whatever VM, that there is no real way for MS to stop you.

Seems from the comments on digg that the clause is *supposed* to stop you from running vista on a boot drive and on a VM... tho there appears to be some confusion.
Click to expand...
You dont think they could have installed a kill switch into the software similar to the WGA one?
 
bwana v.19 said:
You dont think they could have installed a kill switch into the software similar to the WGA one?
Click to expand...

Possibly, but it can probably be reversed by slipstreaming the install or some such.

What really bothers me is all the reports of WGA being a total bugger-up in Vista, with loads of false positives already recorded.

Also that WGA starts breaking functionality once it decides ur a pirate....
and that you'll have limited installs, and moves etc.:eek:
 
My thoughts pretty much: who cares?

I'm one of those people who use Windows only when I have to for some work related purpose. My requirements for using Windows has nothing to do with Windows itself, but with sofware that doesn't run on anything else.

Thus, the version of Windows is irrelivant. And I suspect most Mac users who want Windows on standby have simple demands. So why upgrade?
 
noswal said:
On a twit.tv podcast there was debate that each vista was pc specific so you as an owner could only install one copy on one machine!
Click to expand...

yeah and at a few grand per installation its conna cost some serious money
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X