Microsoft flip-flops again: now no Vista Home on Macs
By Darren Murph 
posted Jun 21st 2007 7:44PM
posted Jun 21st 2007 7:44PM
We've seen our fair share of flip-flopping in the past, and Microsoft is yet again adding its name to the frowned upon list by retracting previous intentions to allow Windows Vista Home and Home Premium operating systems to run under virtualization. After reportedly stating that it would "change the EULA after listening to customer feedback on the issue," it appears that the suits in Redmond have thought better of said decision. Now, the firm has "reassessed the Windows virtualization policy and decided that maintaining the original policy announced last Fall" would be best. Ben Rudolph, Parallels director of corporate communications, noted that he was "obviously disappointed" in Microsoft's change of heart, but if the two-faced Mac users out there can persuade Google to take their side, we're sure this little spat could be cleared up in no time.[Image courtesy of ElliottBack]
Can I get a big "Hahahaha"?
Microsoft only knows it's a losing battle
How do you figure?
So how exactly does this mean no Vista Home on Macs? MS's retarded EULA's stance on virtualization doesn't have any effect on Mac users' ability to use Boot Camp to run Vista Home.
Ah, come on. Who really reads the EULA?
Lawyers.
Low ranked, Heh, maybe I should have thrown in an *Eyeroll* "Lawyers" to make the joke more apparent, emphasis is the key, emphasis.
thats what bootcamp is for. sure its not as easy to do it that way but whatever i just got a mac and dont miss windows at all.
Bootcamp has nothing to do with virtualization. That's running native. Parallels uses virtualization and has the advantages of running at near native speeds, no need to reboot and drag and drop between windows and mac.
Tit for tat.
Srsly. Why can't I run Mac OS X on my PC? Or in a virtualization? Heh.
eh thats ok with me... I'm just going to continue using my bootlegged copy of Ultimate
The headline should be altered, it's incorrect and misleading.
There will be no virtualization(!) of Vista home on macs running in parallels. You can still boot any copy of vista one would want, with bootcamp.
Though I really don't see why one wouldn't just go with vista business if they were using virtualization anyway, it's cheap and has several nice features.
Full disclosure, I use vista/OSX/beryl (big fan of UIs)
They decided to "change the EULA after listening to customer feedback on the issue"??? What customer would say "Hey, Microsoft, Vista is great and all, but I wish you would just change the EULA so that virtualization isn't allowed. That would be awesome. Thanks for listening!"
Read the article a bit more closely.
Initially, the EULA did not allow virtualization of Vista in this manner.
After listening to customer feedback, they decided to allow it.
Now, for reasons best kept hidden away inside Redmond, they're disallowing it again. Hence the "flip-flop" in the title.
"no Vista Home on Macs"
Well it looks like I'll have to just pirate Ultimate instead, ha!
Fix the article title! It's just as bad as Slashdot.
screw mac and windows. move to ubuntu linux or a distro of your choice. there's one for everyone. and did i say it was free?
Does Ubuntu work well on a MacBook? I tried the livecd...7.04 and it lagged to all hell, and guides of actually installing it seem to be far from noob friendly.
Yah meanwhile the rest of the known world wants to you know....actually use apps that are on our current platform.
Linux is great....until you want to do more then the very basics. Will it run my copy of Civ IV? Office 2003? PSP7? Semagic? Mappoint 2006? Game Jackal? Second Life? Supreme Commander?
Seriously. Linux is its favious favors may be good but its also limited in what you can do.
pc_madness >> It's prolly cause you're using a live disc. ubuntu is always slower when its ran off of a cd.
john doe >>
OpenOffice.org = Office 2003
Gimp2.0 = PSP7
There's a civ game for linux called freeciv. I know if you want to play games then just stick with xp.
who cares, I didn't pay for it, why should I care if they don't want me to run it in Parallels?
What is this EULA you guys speak of? Is it French for toilet paper?
Can't run Vista on Macs properly, eh? No bother, can't run Vista on PCs properly either.
@byaah
What's with you and ass? There's more to life than other men's asses.
Funny. I've never had my Mac bitch at me. Not once.
Neither have I. What type of Mac do you have that bitches at you, C?
Of course, learning to, say, write a coherent sentence and understand what the article is actually before you attempt the art of typing a comment might help you make sense. As opposed to not making sense, which is the case with above comment...
bitching, who is bitching?
We don't care what Microsoft says or does, or we would be using their software. And if we have to, we will, we don't care about an EULA.
And why are you calling us fags? Has it come to insulting others to make yourself feel better?
I think you all missed the point. If a Microsoft user decides one day to give a Mac a try, knowing that he could always run windows on it if he really needed to, he has a fall back with Parallels or VMware. We all know once you go Mac you never go back. Microsoft is just trying a stupid way of slowing down the erosion of it market share.
Apple fags? Ouch. That really hurt.
Anyway, I do think MS's decision is kinda stupid, but It really doesn't bother me because I have no intention of running Vista on my Mac. I have Parallels and XP, just to run programs that are MS exclusive. I'm just saving my cash for Leopard.
better never touch Windows~! Nevermind about that~!
Why bother installing Vista on your Mac! XP does the trick perfectly, and if you crave for VISTA(Why???) there's lots of free Vista skin and addon out there. I'm happy to notice that peoples are now getting more and more sensitive to the Mac and Ubuntu appeal, diversity is a sign of health!
HA HA HA. Who cares....Apple fans are always bragging that MacOS is better than Windows and how they don't like / need Windows.
Not to mention that Apple will not allow you to run MacOS on a Windows box. If Apple will not allow Windows users to run MacOSX, why should Microsoft allow Mac users to run Windows?
Fair is fair is it not?
In a sense you are right but remember that Apple makes its own hardware and the OS is designed for that thus there are far less issues.
MS on the other hand uses a far different model... they only make the OS so from a marketing perspective they would want as many computers as possible to be able to run their software thus more sales. To reject a readily available consumer base is simply bad business. MS doesn't think straight most of the time... but I don't need to say that do I. :)
Hmmm...seems engadget has nothing but bad things to say about Microsoft....*cough*applefanboys*cough*
Amazon.com: $269.99
That's hardly 'cheap'
My web server cost less than that to make...
But I guess People who will pay for Apple hardware are
also willing to pay for MS software? Strange how that works.
microshaft tyrants have lost long ago when they started applying primitivist ideologics to computer software. ms is sensless! They removed direct sound acceleration from vista, this could lead to robbing creative labs of their market
vista is pretty junk! Like i said when computer people sart applying primitivst ideologies to computer parts and software u can expect low quality unstable merchandise, and in vistas case, at a high price. at this point stop buying!
dont be a slave who feeds the rich.
So why did Microsoft change their mind? They know there are a lot more people like me out there.
Microsoft's move is an obvious attempt to curtail Apple's market share. They see the writing on the wall. The primary purpose of Windows on a Mac, from a marketing perspective, is to remove the the #1 phobia average PC users have about moving to a Mac... they won't be able to run their Windows programs. Apple realizes that making Windows available on the Mac reduces that apprehension significantly. And once an average PC user moves to a Mac, they will slowly realize that they can manage quite nicely, and possibly better in the Mac OS.
I know this because I've seen it happen with friends and family... and myself. I've logged my fair share with the DOS prompt and DIM switchs, and I've given PCs and Windows a fair shake. My first computer was a Gateway 2000 386SX, then a Zeos Pentium I, then a Dell Dimension PII, then a PowerMac G4, PowerBook G4, and most recently an 20" iMac. The only things I miss about using a Windows PC are the hardware/software incompatibilities, driver issues, viruses, spyware, fatal crashes, blue screens of death, and convoluted software and hardware installations.
If you prefer a PC/Windows computer, good for you. Enjoy. Personally, I've found that since moving to a Mac I spend much less time maintaining my computer and much more time doing productive work. And I don't have to deal with daily popup messages telling me that my computer is at risk or that there are new "updates" available.
So why did Microsoft change their mind? They know there are a lot more people like me out there.
Given that the only Apple-provided-and-supported solution is (or will be at Leopard's release) Boot Camp, I guess a lot of consumers will take the free option before considering purchasing Parallels.
Not that Parallels is a bad product.
If only Microsoft could make a buck for every new enemy they are making of late...
If only I had a half cent for every time I've read that over the last 12 years.
Does this mean that if I just bought Vista Home Premium and Parallels 3.0 for my mac that they are now useless? Or is it only an issue if I want to stay compliant with the EULA?
If you're so desperate to run Windows that you'd buy it rather than pirate, why would you then invalidate your decision by breaching your EULA?
Why not, oh I don't know.... Just run windows? It is what you paid extra for.
Nope, and i HIGHLY doubt you will ever be the one to do it.
**** you microsoft. Vista=No purchase for me.
I can't believe everyone here is so whipped they believe a EULA is automaticlly and totally enforceable.
The ONLY recourse MS has if you do use Vista Home with Parallels is to sue you personally.
It is not "illegal," it is a matter of civil law.
Good luck to them in convincing a court to award any damages for merely running the software you purchased (probably at full retail) on your own personal computer.
There is no reason that you could not run MacOS on a Windows PC outside of the lock down that Apple has put on the operating system. The hardware is the same as is the CPU architecture.
Plainly put, Apple will not allow you to purchase MacOS X to install on a Windows PC and the built in protection prevents it.