Comments on: Microsoft slugs Mac users with Vista tax

By: Doodee

Doodee — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 18:57:55 +0000

Thanks for sharing

By: cap'n crunch

cap'n crunch — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 01:36:14 +0000

So what. Ill just get a pirate copy of A vista that will run, or not use it at all because OSX is amazing

yarr me hearty

By: Mad

Mad — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:23:53 +0000

And all those people that have spent how much cash on IPods still cant use ITunes on vista despite Apple constantly reminding us how long Vista took to come to the market. Swings and roundabouts

By: Augustus

Augustus — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 21:14:49 +0000

What’s the point of running Vista and X separately? You can use the X side as a stable business platform and run Vista for games not available on Mac, like Microsoft’s own Flight Simulator or their upcoming Train Simulator. As for Linux? X is a Unix environment; to hell with using a PC for that and the inane hassle of installation every distro I’ve seen puts you through.

By: Zaine Ridling

Zaine Ridling — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:33:42 +0000

This is one of the better reasons to stick with XP for a while. Microsoft’s stance on virtualization is similar to the RIAA on piracy — they hate it, and I have no idea why, since MORE PEOPLE would use their stupid software. I’m spending 2007 converting to Ubuntu and so far, it’s been very exciting. My old computer is a screamer, and my new one (64-bit Quad) can do anything (just not on Vista). Better to pirate the damn thing.

By: Test

Test — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:43:29 +0000

OK- It looks like the article got it wrong legally from how the license is worded. Now, the real question is are there more Linux users or Vista users? It almost seems like there are more Linux users than Vista users still.

By: Test

Test — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 23:36:13 +0000

Is this even legal?

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:10:33 +0000

Yay, this is what, the 30th time this has been on Digg and the morons writing the story still can’t figure out a simple sentence ?

Like the last 30 times (I may be exaggerating but sadly, I don’t think I am) this is wrong:

“You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system,” the end user license agreement states.

If, you aren’t illiterate, what this tells you is that you can’t install say, Home Premium than inside that install run a VM machine of Vista Home Premium and use the SAME license. So, you can use it in a VM all you want, you just can’t use the license on the host machine at the same time.

Bloody stupid lemmings.

By: Matt

Matt — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 22:08:12 +0000

QUOTE
So what? Its not like Apple makes it easy to run OS X on anything but Apple hardware. Apple does it and its OK. Microsoft does it and they are evil?

Exactly. Fuck off and stop moaning you mac homos.

By: Randy

Randy — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:51:21 +0000

Dude,

You seriously jump to conclusions and obviously don’t understand what your writting about (even though you think you do).

First Off — Apple’s boot camp is NOT A VITURAL MACHINE the virtual machine clauses in Vista’s EULA do not apply it! Boot camp is a boot loader and a set of Windows drivers for Mac hardware. You can legally run the Home Version of Vista on a Mac all you want.

Secondly– Microsoft’s VM clauses in the EULA are not Mac specific! You can’t use a Virtual Machine on Linux, Unix, Solaris or (gasp !) even another Windows installation to run the Home version of Vista. Microsoft wants you to pay for each installation of Home Vista regardless of weather its Virtual or not — its as simple as that.

Third: What makes you think your can’t have a VM installation as a licensed device??

Don’t be a dork by trying to make this out to be some sort of Apple Vs MS thing.