Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Ryan Faas's picture
Ryan Faas

Biting the Apple

Do Vista's restrictions about virtualization affect Mac-using businesses?

There’s been a lot of discussion generated over the fact that Microsoft has restricted how Vista can be used in virtualized environments. Most of the discussion has focused on consumers and end users, how will arguably be the most hard hit by the restrictions. So far as I’ve seen, no one has talked about how this will impact businesses that run on Macs.

The number of small businesses relying on Mac OS X as their primary platform has begun growing dramatically according to every developer of Mac business software that I’ve talked with over the past few months. One of the reasons that seems obvious is that virtualization makes it possible to run the occasional Windows application right alongside (or technically, inside) Mac OS X. This sidesteps one of the major concerns that had always been expressed about using Macs for business: the need for one or more Windows-only applications.

So, what kinds of fall-out do these newly or soon-to-be Mac businesses face from Vista’s restrictions about virtual machine use? Probably very little. Most businesses would be planning to purchase the business version of Vista rather than either of the home versions, so there shouldn’t be a problem in terms of running Vista under either Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion.

The other restrictions primarily seem to relate to DRM-content access. Again, this is a huge impact on consumers who might be using a virtualization as a way of accessing music or video from a service not available on the Mac. The truth is, if you’re a business owner or manager, these are the types of things that you don’t want your employees to be using anyway. Since most, if not all, business-related software will not be using DRM, there should be limited ,if any direct problems.

The Vista license agreement does also caution against using full volume encryption in a virtual environment. This doesn’t seem to be something that’s explicitly outlawed so much as a recommendation. However, while that could have some security implications, it doesn’t seem to be a overly strong reason to not run Vista using virtualization in a business environment.

What People Are Saying

I'm just greatly

I'm just greatly disappointed (and feeling misled) by Microsoft. I'm developing cross-platform software and have been using virtual machines on my Macintosh to test the comaptibility of my programmes with the various Microsoft operating systems (as well as the Mac ones of course). I've got a copy of Home Basic version of Vista on order but now it looks like it won't be any use to me. If Microsoft wants to promote users and developers migrating to the Vista platform they have a funny way of showing it.

I too am pissed at Microsoft

I too am pissed at Microsoft for restricting how their software is used. I plan on writing them protesting the Draconian limitations as soon as I finish installing OS X using VMware on my Linux laptop. Umm seems I can't, Apple won't allow it. Whatever happened to the rights of consumers?

Microsoft does not cease to

Microsoft does not cease to amaze me... in a bad way, of course. By stipulating in the EULA that only the Business Premium Package is the only version of Vista that can be run in virtualization is ridiculous. Obviously, if you can purchase the cheap version of Vista and run it, and you all ready own a Mac, then other OEMs that make there money by people upgrading their equipment to run Vista are out of luck. Yet another way Microsoft bullies others to play by their rules. Ridiculous. A few workarounds. 1.) Microsoft does not know if the version you are running is in virtualization mode. The EULA simply states that you need to follow the rules. Fat chance. 2.) Run vista natively on Bootcamp. This does not violate the EULA since this is not considered virtualization. From bootstrap to shutdown, Vista runs natively on the Intel hardware of the new Macs. 3.) Don't purchase Vista. Plain and clear, Vista only provides eye candy to an all ready working operating system (XP). Stick with XP, or even better, why upgrade to vista when you upgrade past it (Mac OS X).

As an owner of both a mac

As an owner of both a mac and window machine, it is disapointing that microsoft has posed such a restriction. I had a free upgrade path for my windows xp machine to vista which I had planned to place on a virtual machine for purpose of trying out the product prior to taking the plunge. I wanted to make sure the problems were worked out prior to installing as my host operating system. Now this is a non option unless I buy the more expensive business version. Needless, to say, I am not going to install vista on my host system as I just think there are to many bugs - so much for microsoft allowing me to test the product prior to installing. What ever happened to the rights of the consumer?

Your grammar is atrocious.

Your grammar is atrocious.