The Reluctant Pirate

[Roy Schestowitz]

__/ [ arachnid ] on Sunday 24 December 2006 00:15 \__

Yes it is. Microsoft has artificially (via EULA) removed the ability to
run Vista Home in a virtual machine and then charges about $200 extra to
grant you the right to run Vista in a VM. As I already pointed out, the
ability to run on virtual hardware is inherent in software and isn't
anything that Microsoft added.

Multimedia capabilities are a necessary part of any modern OS, yet have
been strategically removed from Vista Home Basic.

Acer: Vista Home Basic is a lemon

,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft is effectively smuggling through a price hike for Windows
| Vista - by making the entry-level version so poor that no-one will
| want to use it. So says Jim Wong, senior veep at Acer, the world's
| number four PC maker, who told UK hack Jon Honeyball: "The new
| [Vista] experience you hear of, if you get Basic, you won't feel
| it at all. There's no [Aero] graphics, no Media Center, no
| remote control."
`----

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/27/acer_slams_vista_home_basic/

Virtual Machine technology is something most home users need. It provides
an easy way to separate user accounts, to cleanly separate Internet
activities from private records, and to quickly try out new things without
putting your primary installation at risk. If Microsoft really cared about
their users' security they'd be encouraging, rather than discouraging, the
use of VM technology.


Their purpose is to give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them
to add the features they're likely to need.

DRM - Defective by design.

Vista - Incomplete by design.

Windows - insecure by design <Washington Post>.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A34978-2003Aug23?language=printer

Microsoft - unethical/aggressive by design.

--
~~ Kind greetings and happy holidays!

http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 137 total, 2 running, 133 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine

 

[Alias]

It's not $200 to get Vista Business, which includes VM rights. No, it's
not something Microsoft added to Windows, but that's really beside the
point. Open Source developers dictate the terms in which their software
may be distributed or used. Microsoft is certainly within their rights to
dictate what they want.


Vista Basic has every multi-media capability that XP Home and Pro have.
What it doesn't have is Media Center, which is "Tivo" like functionality
that most people don't really use. Home basic as Media Player, It has
Picture Galleries, it has the ability to play music and videos... Watch
DVD's, etc... It just can't act like a Tivo without an upgrade or extra
software.

Simply put, you're totally wrong about this.


No it's not. Most home users would never use it, much less even figure out
HOW to use it. Certainly some home users will have need for it, but then
most of those people aren't likely to be running Vista Home (either basic
or premium) they're power users, and will likely want to run Vista Ultimate
for it's other features.

I think the case of someone wanting to use Home Basic or Premium and
Virtual Machines, other than for development and testing purposes, is
pretty slim to non-existent. And for development and testing your MSDN
license overrides the software license and allows this.


Most users wouldn't even be able to figure out what VM technology was, much
less how to use it, and you know that.


There are no features in Vista Ultimate that an average home user would
need or even know how to use. There are certainly features that a business
user or home poweruser would use, and that's why Ultimate exists...

It must be comforting to have all of humanity so neatly and tidily
pigeon holed.

Alias

 

[Robert Blacher]

Hmm, Dvorak used that piece of crud on his blog, too? Shame on him.

The email you quoted was introduced in a lawsuit against Microsoft by the
plaintiff's lawyers.

The fact that Allchin in an internal email was brave and blunt enough to
tell Ballmer and Gates that he thought MSFT was headed off-course is a
*good* sign. If MSFT only had "yes" people, the development process would
be awful.

See:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/12/12/title.aspx

where Allchin speaks on this subject.

While the press naturally couldn't resist using that email, all it means is
that there was (Allchin retires next month) at least one employee at MSFT
willing to stick his neck waaaaaaay out and tell the truth when it needed to
be told.

I think I've made it pretty clear in this newsgroup that I'm not a MSFT
apologist and I sure as heck am not competing for an MVP award.

 

[Dale]

Your post made me think of another point on the OP's suggestion. There may
actually be some coding to enable virtual machines in Vista. I know that
there were some issues in early betas with Vista in virtual machines. For
all we know, Microsoft may well have built in some optimizations for
virtualization. Thus, there could very well have been extra costs that
justify including virtualization only in those packages targeted for IT
professionals.

Dale

 

[caver1]

Hmm, Dvorak used that piece of crud on his blog, too? Shame on him.

The email you quoted was introduced in a lawsuit against Microsoft by
the plaintiff's lawyers.

The fact that Allchin in an internal email was brave and blunt enough to
tell Ballmer and Gates that he thought MSFT was headed off-course is a
*good* sign. If MSFT only had "yes" people, the development process
would be awful.

See:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/12/12/title.aspx


where Allchin speaks on this subject.

While the press naturally couldn't resist using that email, all it means
is that there was (Allchin retires next month) at least one employee at
MSFT willing to stick his neck waaaaaaay out and tell the truth when it
needed to be told.

I think I've made it pretty clear in this newsgroup that I'm not a MSFT
apologist and I sure as heck am not competing for an MVP award.

Reason for the quote here was to show that ones, and not lowly ones,
agree to the one before in this thread who said-> Their purpose is to
give consumers a barely usable OS and then charge them

 

[Mike]

I hadn't heard that Home Basic didn't include Windows Media Player 11. Is
that something new?

It's not true. Home Basic includes WMP 11.

Mike

 

[Dale]

I was being facetious.

Dale

It's not true. Home Basic includes WMP 11.

Mike

 

[arachnid]

It's not $200 to get Vista Business, which includes VM rights.

Per the Vista Business EULA, you can't access Microsoft protected
formats from Vista Business running in a VM. By my interpretation that
would also include Microsoft protected Office formats. Just one more
artificial limitation.

No, it's not something Microsoft added to Windows, but that's really
beside the point.

It's not beside the point because it puts the lie to the claim that MS
is only trying to save consumers some money. MS did absolutely nothing to
add VM capabilities yet they take them away by EULA and charge you to get
them back. This is like selling you MS Office, then saying you can't use
vowels unless you pay even more for that "feature". Such is not the
behavior of a company that is trying to save consumers money.

Open Source developers dictate the terms in which
their software may be distributed or used. Microsoft is certainly
within their rights to dictate what they want.

Nobody said they weren't in their rights to squeeze every last cent they
can get out of the market. I'm just pointing out that the Vista upsell is
not something they're doing out of the goodness of their hearts.

Vista Basic has every multi-media capability that XP Home and Pro have.
What it doesn't have is Media Center, which is "Tivo" like functionality
that most people don't really use.

Expectations change as technology improves. The EU's ruling was fine in
its time, but now with high-definition cable TV and HDTV becoming
commonplace, features similar to MCE's should come with any modern
consumer OS.

Home basic as Media Player, It has Picture Galleries, it has the ability
to play music and videos... Watch DVD's,

Haven't really looked to see if this is true, but I hear rumors it can't
even burn DVD's without buying additional software. If true, that's pretty
sad.

etc... It just can't act like a Tivo without an upgrade or extra
software.

Simply put, you're totally wrong about this.

No I'm not.

No it's not. Most home users would never use it, much less even figure
out HOW to use it.

Oh, please. VM technology is not all that complicated. The only reason
home users won't be using it is that Microsoft has made it so expensive
for them.

Certainly some home users will have need for it, but then most of those
people aren't likely to be running Vista Home (either basic or premium)
they're power users, and will likely want to run Vista Ultimate for it's
other features.

On the contrary. Nearly every "which Vista should I use" article I've
seen has steered users away from Vista Home Basic. For example:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2068724,00.asp

"So which edition do you go with? We would honestly recommend avoiding
the Home Basic version".

As for how many people will want Home Premium over Home Basic:

<http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...xpect_a_premium_push_with_premium_prices.html>

"Goldman Sachs & Co. analyst Rick Sherlund issued a research note
earlier this month, noting that Goldman is now figuring Microsoft could
garner an extra $1.5 billion per year in revenues simply by persuading
users to buy the premium Vista versions."

<snip>

"Goldman is estimating that about 75 percent of the Vista consumer
demographic will go for the Home Premium version of Vista, as opposed to
Home Basic."

I think the case of someone wanting to use Home Basic or Premium and
Virtual Machines, other than for development and testing purposes, is
pretty slim to non-existent.

How about letting consumers decide for themselves what they need and what
they're capable of?

And for development and testing your MSDN license overrides the software
license and allows this.

MSDN does no good for the average consumer.

Most users wouldn't even be able to figure out what VM technology was,
much less how to use it, and you know that.

No I don't know that Erik. Quit putting nonsense words in my mouth. I
believe that nontechnical home users CAN use VM technology because I've
seen them do it. It should be be each user's decision as to whether they
need VM technology and are competent to use it.

It's the height of absurdity to claim that Microsoft is taking something
away that they didn't even create and then selling it back because
average users are too stupid to use it. Microsoft's pricing structure
serves only Microsoft. Consumers are just a food source, nothing more.

There are no features in Vista Ultimate that an average home user would
need or even know how to use. There are certainly features that a
business user or home poweruser would use, and that's why Ultimate
exists...

What if I buy a laptop that comes with Vista Home and want to set
up a secure VM for surfing the Internet? I'm certainly competent to
install and use VM software. It didn't cost MS anything extra for that to
be technically doable. So, what other than sheer bloody greed explains
Microsoft's use of a EULA to keep me from running Vista Home in a VM
running on the hardware it's licensed to?

 

[arachnid]

Your post made me think of another point on the OP's suggestion. There
may actually be some coding to enable virtual machines in Vista. I know
that there were some issues in early betas with Vista in virtual machines.

VMware Server didn't even exist when MSDOS, DRDOS, PC-DOS, Windows
2.x, 3.x, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP were written. Yet, all of these
run fine under VMware with no modification. So do several pre-VMware
flavors of Linux I've tried as well as some modern versions, plus the
BSD's, Solaris, etc. If Vista has any problems running under VM's then I
would find it very difficult to believe they are accidental. An OS has
to go out of its way to detect the difference between real and simulated
hardware.

For all we know, Microsoft may well have built in some optimizations
for virtualization. Thus, there could very well have been extra costs
that justify including virtualization only in those packages targeted
for IT professionals.

But we don't know that, do we? You're just reaching for excuses.

BTW Erik hangs out in comp.os.linux.advocacy so you need to leave that in
the newsgroup list when replying to him.

 

[Robert Blacher]

MSFT is a profit-seeking entity. They will charge as much for Vista as the
market will tolerate. That is what they are supposed to do.

Whether the "upgrade" market will tolerate the high price of Vista coupled
with the one license per CPU EULA (actually enforced this time) remains to
be seen.

My *guess* is they've made a couple of mistakes. They've already changed
the licensing terms once in response to negative feedback from power
users/early adopters. See:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx

Let's see what what most "power users" do when confronted with $239 times
TWO to get Home Premium x64 on his/her desktop and laptop. Or $800 to get
the Ultimate x64 on the same 2 machines? That just does *not sound likely
to me.

 

[arachnid]

"Their purpose..."
That is your opinion.
Mine is that it gives the buyer a choice.

My opinion is supported by Microsoft's behavior vis-a-vis running Vista
Home on Virtual Machines. This is behavior that takes away consumer
choice and charges people to use a feature that Microsoft never
contributed to.

Along with the choices come
features and a cost. Microsoft get blamed by you because a choice of a
lower cost version is available.
If you had your way, Microsoft would get blamed by those that feel the
price could have been lower with less unneeded features.

If Microsoft did as you suggested, prices for the cheapest Vista would be
higher and those not wanting or needing the features would be forced to
pay simply because some like you feel you know what the others need. Give
the buyers some credit, many research and buy what they need to begin
with.

Every "which Vista should I use" article that I've seen has steered users
away from Vista Basic. If you check my reply to Erik on this, you'll see a
link to a Goldman Sachs analyst suggesting that 75% of the market will go
for Vista Home Premium or higher. Vista Home Basic is only the bottom rung
of an upsell ladder, strategically crippled so as to require upgrading by
most users.

Tell me, if Microsoft is so oh-so-concerned about letting consumers choose
what they do and don't need so as to save them money, why did they
"integrate" IE into Windows and raise the price of Windows instead of
letting Netscape users forego IE and save the extra bucks?

I like choices where I can determine where my $ go and so do many others.

And yet Microsoft isn't letting people have the choice of installing
Vista Home in a virtual machine.

 

[Mike]

Oh, please. VM technology is not all that complicated. The only reason
home users won't be using it is that Microsoft has made it so expensive
for them.

Yeah, by giving away VPC 2007!

"Goldman is estimating that about 75 percent of the Vista consumer
demographic will go for the Home Premium version of Vista, as opposed to
Home Basic."

Which means that 25% will be happy with Home Basic. Sounds like a win-win
to me.

What if I buy a laptop that comes with Vista Home and want to set
up a secure VM for surfing the Internet? I'm certainly competent to
install and use VM software.

Then just do it and stop whining. I have Home Basic in VPC right now.

Mike

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

Per the Vista Business EULA, you can't access Microsoft protected
formats from Vista Business running in a VM. By my interpretation that
would also include Microsoft protected Office formats. Just one more
artificial limitation.

That's because you need access to the TPM chip, which the VM doesn't
provide. This is not a license restriction, it's a technical one.

Expectations change as technology improves. The EU's ruling was fine in
its time, but now with high-definition cable TV and HDTV becoming
commonplace, features similar to MCE's should come with any modern
consumer OS.

Of all the people I know with PC's (hundreds) NONE of them use their PC for
a media center. If they have something, they have a dedicated TiVo. Few
people want to put their PC in their living room next to their TV, or want
to tax their PC's power with constant video processing. It's frankly, a
dedicated function in my opinion.

Further, the TV industry has mandated HDCP for use with TV's and DVD
players, and you're not going to get anything but S-Video quality from a
PC.

Haven't really looked to see if this is true, but I hear rumors it can't
even burn DVD's without buying additional software. If true, that's pretty
sad.

That has always been the case. In most cases, the "additional software" is
an OEM copy of Nero or EZ DVD Creator that comes with it.

Oh, please. VM technology is not all that complicated. The only reason
home users won't be using it is that Microsoft has made it so expensive
for them.

They're not using it today, despite freely available downloads of bot
VMWare and Microsoft's VM software. Anyone using VM software is a power
user.

On the contrary. Nearly every "which Vista should I use" article I've
seen has steered users away from Vista Home Basic. For example:

That may be, but end users will look at the features and the cost and
decide what's right for their pocket book. By the way, Extremetech is an
"extreme" ie, gamers and enthusiests site, not something aunt martha is
reading.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2068724,00.asp

"So which edition do you go with? We would honestly recommend avoiding
the Home Basic version".

These sites are doing people a disservice. Aero is not that big of a deal
really, and most users simply won't use media center. It's pointless if
you don't have a TV card in your PC.

As for how many people will want Home Premium over Home Basic:

<http://www.microsoft-watch.com/cont...xpect_a_premium_push_with_premium_prices.html>

"Goldman Sachs & Co. analyst Rick Sherlund issued a research note
earlier this month, noting that Goldman is now figuring Microsoft could
garner an extra $1.5 billion per year in revenues simply by persuading
users to buy the premium Vista versions."

Of course they're going to try and persuade you to buy the premium
versions. Just like GM is going to persuade you to buy the ultimate sound
system with satellite radio and leather seats.

"Goldman is estimating that about 75 percent of the Vista consumer
demographic will go for the Home Premium version of Vista, as opposed to
Home Basic."

The only way this will happen is if OEM's choose to make Vista Premium the
default version. Most users would rather save the money if given the
option.

How about letting consumers decide for themselves what they need and what
they're capable of?

I agree, but that defeats your argument. Your arguing that VM rights are
needed because most end users will need them. I argue that whether or not
such rights are included, most users won't use it.

MSDN does no good for the average consumer.

Are you really that lacking in reading comprehension skills?

No I don't know that Erik. Quit putting nonsense words in my mouth. I
believe that nontechnical home users CAN use VM technology because I've
seen them do it. It should be be each user's decision as to whether they
need VM technology and are competent to use it.

You've seen someone with no technical experience seek out and acquire
Virtual Machine software, install it, install a new copy of their OS, and
utilize it for very technical reasons?

I don't believe you. Sorry, I just don't. Virtual Machines are a subject
most users can't even grasp. They don't know understand what "virtual"
means in this context. I know this for a fact because i've spent the last
year trying to explain the concept to a variety of users. One of my
clients makes very heavy use of VMWare ESX servers. In most cases we
simply stop trying to convince them if they don't get it and just tell them
there are multiple physical computers in there.

What if I buy a laptop that comes with Vista Home and want to set
up a secure VM for surfing the Internet? I'm certainly competent to
install and use VM software. It didn't cost MS anything extra for that to
be technically doable. So, what other than sheer bloody greed explains
Microsoft's use of a EULA to keep me from running Vista Home in a VM
running on the hardware it's licensed to?

You're a power user, not an average user. The fact that you're even on
usenet is a testament to that.

I don't really care what their reasons are. The fact of the matter is, the
license restricts it.

 

[arachnid]

You get a lot more additional functionality than virtual machine support
by upgrading to Ultimate or Business.

The point is that MS is charging for something that they didn't spend a
penny to provide.

I hadn't heard that Home Basic didn't include Windows Media Player 11. Is
that something new?

And while I have been glad to use the included media players in all
Windows versions, I tend to agree with the EU on this one. Multimedia is
not part of "Operating System". It is a specific functional application
and not part of just operating the hardware - with the exception of the
startup sound. That said, unless you can send us a link to where it is
documented that Home Basic won't include WMP 11, then you're still wrong.
There is multimedia functionality built in to Windows Vista.

Multimedia is more than just WMP. Nowadays it should include PVR
capabilities and DVD authoring. While it shouldn't be woven into the
kernel, it *should* be bundled with any modern OS.

Virtual aachine technology is not anything home users (as targeted by
Microsoft Windows Vista Home Basic or Premium) need or would know how to
use. Vista has great user separation built in. Even as administrator,
I cannot get into other users documents unless I take specific action to
override the default security.

They said the same thing about Windows XP. Why should I believe them this
time? At any rate it's not your place (or Microsoft's) to decide for
Home Vista users whether they need VM technology or are skilled enough to
use it.

IT Professionals and developers need virtual machine technology. Those
are users who should be using Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. On top
of that, it requires a separate Vista license for each virtual machine
you install the OS in. Home users are not going to buy several copies
of Vista to run on one PC.

It's the same hardware so why should they *have* to buy several copies of
Vista just to run a hypervisor and several VM's?

Or perhaps the purpose was to create a fully powered high end desktop OS
for IT professionals that need it and yet not charge consumers for
features they don't need and will never use.

This is inconsistent with Microsoft's taking away VM abilities that they
didn't create, and charging people $200 more to get them back.

 

[Erik Funkenbusch]

VMware Server didn't even exist when MSDOS, DRDOS, PC-DOS, Windows
2.x, 3.x, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, and XP were written. Yet, all of these
run fine under VMware with no modification. So do several pre-VMware
flavors of Linux I've tried as well as some modern versions, plus the
BSD's, Solaris, etc. If Vista has any problems running under VM's then I
would find it very difficult to believe they are accidental. An OS has
to go out of its way to detect the difference between real and simulated
hardware.

I guess that's why OS/2 doesn't run very well under VM's, right?

IBM must have gone out of it's way to make OS/2 not work, right?

Vista has no trouble running under VM's, however a large number of features
won't work or will be reduced in functionality because key hardware (such
as TPM chips and 3D GPU's) aren't virtualized.

But we don't know that, do we? You're just reaching for excuses.

Actually, we do know that they have. They have implemented a Xen
compatible hypervisor interface in Vista.

 

[Dale]

Why do I care about responding to a Linux group about Vista? If Erik
doesn't read this group, he shouldn't post to this group.

Dale

 

[Dale]

And still, no matter whether Microsoft supports virtualization in and of
Vista Home, it still requires a separate license for Windows to install a
second copy in the virtual machine. The host and each VM require their own
separate Windows licenses. Home users are not going to pay for additional
Vista licenses in order to use Virtual PC.

Dale

 

[caver1]

MSFT is a profit-seeking entity. They will charge as much for Vista as
the market will tolerate. That is what they are supposed to do.

Whether the "upgrade" market will tolerate the high price of Vista
coupled with the one license per CPU EULA (actually enforced this time)
remains to be seen.

My *guess* is they've made a couple of mistakes. They've already
changed the licensing terms once in response to negative feedback from
power users/early adopters. See:

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/w...-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx


Let's see what what most "power users" do when confronted with $239
times TWO to get Home Premium x64 on his/her desktop and laptop. Or
$800 to get the Ultimate x64 on the same 2 machines? That just does
*not sound likely to me.

I agree there is nothing wrong with making money. That is what a
business is for. It is wrong when many of your business practices are
unethical. And no MS is not alone in this. Most businesses and many
individuals are also guilty.

 

[caver1]

Yeah, by giving away VPC 2007!


Which means that 25% will be happy with Home Basic. Sounds like a
win-win to me.


Then just do it and stop whining. I have Home Basic in VPC right now.

Mike

Yes VPC 2007 is free. But to run MS software on it you have to buy
additional programs. Yes IE is free but "Supposedly" it is a component
of the OS that cannot be separated so then to surf the internet in
VMware you have to buy another copy of the OS. Not too expensive?

 

[Linonut]

After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out this bit o' wisdom:

It's not $200 to get Vista Business, which includes VM rights. No, it's
not something Microsoft added to Windows, but that's really beside the
point. Open Source developers dictate the terms in which their software
may be distributed or used. Microsoft is certainly within their rights to
dictate what they want.

Does Microsoft dictate good, Erik?