No VMware for you!

[GomJabbar]

Microsoft restricts use of Virualization software in Vista for "Security Reasons".

http://redmondmag.com/news/article.asp? ... alsID=8251

The price of the virtualization software does not include a copy of Windows. And to get that copy, buyers have to agree to Vista's licensing rules -- a legally binding document. Lurking in that 14-page agreement is a ban on using the least expensive versions of Vista -- the $199 Home Basic edition and the $239 Home Premium edition -- in virtualization engines.

Instead, people wanting to put Vista in a virtualized program have to buy the $299 Business version or the $399 Ultimate package.

-------------------------

Plus, even though Microsoft will let virtualization products run the higher-priced versions of Vista, some powerful features in those editions are also forbidden in virtualization. The license agreement prohibits virtualization programs from using Vista's BitLocker data-encryption service or from playing music, video or other content wrapped in Microsoft's copyright-protection technology. Microsoft says virtualization's security holes make those features dangerous as well.

-------------------------

But not everyone agrees a virtualization lockdown is justified. In fact, virtualization has been considered a security enhancement. If applications run within their own walls, malicious code can be confined to that zone and not infect the rest of the computer.

"Nobody's complained to us that there's security issues with our products," said Srinivas Krishnamurti, director of product management at EMC Corp. unit VMWare, which plans to release a product for Macs this summer.

In a statement e-mailed after the interview, Krishnamurti added: "The Vista licensing limitation is akin to the industry saying, `Hey, consumer, when you connect your PC to the Internet, there is a chance you can download adware, spyware or malware so we don't think you should connect to the Internet using a browser.' The world would be a very different place if the industry made that decision in the '90s."

[domi]

The price of the virtualization software does not include a copy of Windows. And to get that copy, buyers have to agree to Vista's licensing rules -- a legally binding document. Lurking in that 14-page agreement is a ban on using the least expensive versions of Vista -- the $199 Home Basic edition and the $239 Home Premium edition -- in virtualization engines.

Instead, people wanting to put Vista in a virtualized program have to buy the $299 Business version or the $399 Ultimate package.

As I see it, a VMware virtual machine is just another computer. MS won't tell us that Windows Home can be run on an HP computer, but not a Lenovo one, or on an AMD computer, but not on an Intel one. So why would they decide that a legal copy of Vista Home can't be used on a virtual machine? I'm quite sure these licensing rules could be challenged in the courts of a number of countries.

[carbon_unit]

They want you to pay for the ability to use it in a virtual machine. From what I have read all versions of Vista will work in a VM but the license does not allow it in the cheaper versions.

[zverg]

It's much less than "not allowed", it's just "not supported". They aren't going to come knocking at your door because you used home premium in VMware, but if you call them asking for support they can just hang up on you and not care at all.

I doubt there's a legit technical reason for not supporting the cheaper versions in virutualized environments.. it's just more $$ for M$.