All Vista editions can now be virtualized

Microsoft has done a complete 180 on its policy concerning virtualization and Windows Vista. When the new operating system became available to the public a year ago, Microsoft’s end-user license agreement only allowed the pricey Business and Ultimate versions of Vista to be run on a virtual machine. However, as eWeek reports, Microsoft has now altered its policy to include the cheaper Home Basic and Home Premium editions of Vista in its list of operating systems that can be virtualized.

eWeek quotes the revised license agreement as saying, "instead of using the software directly on the licensed device, you may install and use the software within only one virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device." The agreement goes on to warn that Vista’s BitLocker full-drive encryption technology may not be as secure in a virtualized environment.

Microsoft reportedly intended to allow all versions of Vista to be virtualized from the start, but something made it change its mind last year. Microsoft’s Server Infrastructure General Manager Larry Orecklin told eWeek yesterday that customer interest for virtualization has increased over the past six months, adding, "We think the market is now ready for this." The move should notably benefit users of Apple’s Intel-based Macs, who can use software like Parallels to run Windows and Windows applications from within Mac OS X instead having to dual-boot.

Comments closed
    • blitzy
    • 13 years ago

    good and they should’ve been in the first place, damn crippleware.

    • SGT Lindy
    • 13 years ago

    Compared to XP, Vista is not selling well. The numbers have been posted recently. If you believe Bill and company about the 100million more power to you.

    Microsoft late to VM technology? Of course someone had to invent it and make it popular before they got on board and now will apply to truck loads of money to copy, market, and back door deals like crazy until they are a major player in the VM market.

    This tactic is pretty much the same for almost every segment they compete in.

      • Krogoth
      • 13 years ago

      Hate to broke it to you, but VMs are among the oldest applications for computers in general.

      The problem with VMs is that they required a lot of memory, processing power and multiple processors to run effectively. Mainframes were the only systems that could provided the resources until 1990s. This is when some high-end server boxes started to dabble with VMs.

      When processing power, multi-core chips and memory become cheaper and plentiful. VMs became a viable option for power users.

        • SGT Lindy
        • 13 years ago

        I have been using LPAR’s for a longtime.

        VM’s on x86 is what I am talking about MS copying. There is a massive market for x86 VM’s. VMware dominates this market right now especially in the fortune 500 world. I work for a large global company that uses VMware ESX like crazy, and we are moving every windows server we can to ESX servers…and we have thousands of them. After complete that were will only be large MS SQL and Exchange servers that are NOT a VM.

        MS wants so badly to get into this market. They of course will spend billions to copy/build something then give it away like Virtual Server today. Much like the Xbox, ship it FRAQed up and use your market posistion to force support for it, and then it just becomes a matter of who can bleed longer….MS wins.

    • SGT Lindy
    • 13 years ago

    Translation = PLEASE BUY VISTA!

    They changed their tune because sales SUCK! Not because it was the right thing to do for the customer.

      • Krogoth
      • 13 years ago

      Wrong translation.

      Vista is selling very well, despite all of the lame FUD.

      >_<

      I believe a better translations is

      “Crap, I think we underestimated the value of VMs”

    • deruberhanyok
    • 13 years ago

    >>over the past *six months*, adding, “We think the market is now ready for this.”<<

    I have to ask, seriously, what has changed here in the last six months? This sounds to me like “yeah, we weren’t paying attention and that was our bad.”

    • ChronoReverse
    • 13 years ago

    Abysmal boot times of a few seconds more than XP? Vista boots in less than 45 seconds including the bios screens on my laptop…

    • bthylafh
    • 13 years ago

    I run XP Pro & Vista Enterprise in a Parallels VM, because I do desktop support & do both OSes. I’d have a 2000 one as well, but 2000 didn’t want to install for me. I’m using MacOS because we support that as well.

    edit: meant as a reply to #1.

      • Master Kenobi
      • 13 years ago

      You support MacOSX? Do you have to support Mac Server? If so then I am truly sorry.

        • StashTheVampede
        • 13 years ago

        Mac Server is pretty well mannered. Some gui tools, but plenty of cli to futz with.

        • bthylafh
        • 13 years ago

        No, our servers run a mix of Windows Server ’03 and AIX 5.3.

          • Master Kenobi
          • 13 years ago

          Ah ok, yea same were running here. I’ve dealt with Mac Server a few times and each time I wanted to take a baseball bat to it.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 13 years ago

            What are the annoyances and gripes about it? My biggest gripe: no citrix-like client. There are simply times when MS kicks Apple’s butt for maintenance and THIS is one of them. VNC != Citrix, when it comes to admining a Mac network and Apple needs to get off their high horse and fucking clone it.

            • SGT Lindy
            • 13 years ago

            I agree what is the problem with Apple Server…its BSD UNIX????

            Also this product from Apple, allow you to remote control servers and clients like RDP in windows.

            ยง[<http://www.apple.com/remotedesktop/<]ยง I guess they "fucking" cloned it.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 13 years ago

            This product isn’t a Citrix-like like that Remote Desktop Connection is. That is VNC on roids. It’s not bad, per se, but it’s not MUCH more (in terms of speed) than the vast number of VNC clients out in the world. What *that* has is monitoring, inventory and a slew of other admin features.

            None of which make the VNC experience any Fing better.

    • bozzunter
    • 13 years ago

    I don’t see the point of using Vista with Parallels or Fusion. I use XP as I use Mac Os for 90% of the stuff, XP is just a mean to run a few Windows only programs. Why I should install Vista with its fenomenal boot times is a mistery to me.

      • Master Kenobi
      • 13 years ago

      No need to bash Vista. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean it’s not a good operating system. Vista is the future though, like it or not.

        • Ashbringer
        • 13 years ago

        No need to praise Vista. Just because you like it, doesn’t mean it’s a pile of crap. Vista is the future, but that can also be said for Linux and Mac OSX.

        See what I did there?

          • DASQ
          • 13 years ago

          Vista may have it’s share of problems, but at the end of the day it’s usable. And stable. I have my primary desktop on Vista Business. Uptimes exceeding 30 days. Haven’t seen a bluescreen since I switched from XP. I’ve had no compatibility issues with software that are actually Vista’s fault (as opposed to companies writing shitty drivers for Vista). Other than a couple of IPv4 dependent apps that half-don’t work with the new networking stack in Vista, but no big deal.

            • Ashbringer
            • 13 years ago

            Were you supporting my argument or yours?

            You listed issues with Vista even I didn’t know about.

            • DASQ
            • 13 years ago

            I’m arguing for both of you. You’re both right. It’s not perfect, nor is it worthless.

          • eitje
          • 13 years ago

          what you did there is miss a “not”. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Master Kenobi
          • 13 years ago

          Linux isn’t the future, not until it can consolidate. In it’s present state it’s no threat to anyone. OSX as long as it’s tied to Apple hardware is also no threat. Nice try though.

        • eitje
        • 13 years ago

        at least until 2009. ๐Ÿ™‚

        • bozzunter
        • 13 years ago

        I’m not bashing Vista here, I did it in other topics, but here I’m talking about something different. What I mean is that if you use Mac Os, you need Windows in order to run native Windows programs, right? But apart from that, you do NOT need the OS per se, you don’t need its functions. So, although I do wonder what useful features Vista has over XP (and I used it one year), I mean that XP is enough to run the couple of programs I need and it uses much less memory, has much faster booting times (on a Mac it’s 15 seconds boot) and so on. This is the reason why I don’t understand someone would need to use Vista virtualized.

        • ToeBot
        • 13 years ago

        The fact that “Vista is the future, like it or not”, seems like a very good reason to bash it, perhaps even the best reason. It’s certainly a consideration beyond the (presumed) quality of the operating system. No viable choice. Now, isn’t it time for some armchair economist (with a single semester of econ now safely behind him) to chime in and explain how competition is good thing and how Microsoft really isn’t a monopoly?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This