Adam Scheinberg's Blog

Windows Vista Can Go &#@% Itself

Adam Scheinberg, October 31, 2006 (18 years ago)

After reading about the nonsense buried within the Windows End User License Agreement, and the crazy restrictions Vista is going to introduce, I'm happier than ever to be on a Mac.
Let me quote: So you can't create a virtual image using Home Basic ($199) or Home Premium ($239). However, the EULA does allow you to use Vista Business ($299) or Vista Ultimate ($399). Hmmm... I wonder why? It couldn't possibly be because those editions cost more, could it? Wanna bet? The fact that there aren't any technical restrictions in place to prevent users from loading Home editions into VMWare, only legal and support barriers, sure lends credence to that supposition.
Let me ask - is the language in the EULA even legal? Can Microsoft actually prevent me from running software I purchased - and therefore, is properly licensed - in a virtual machine? What's next - can they dictate that certain types of devices cannot be attached to my computer? Or certain BRANDS? What about certain files not being stored in NTFS? Can they tell me that I'm not allowed to visit certain websites with their browser? Or that I can't install certain programs?
I use Microsoft products at work, almost exclusively, but I must say, I really wish there were an *easy transition* to an alternative, because Micrsoft licensing SUCKS with a capital "FRIGGIN SUCKS." I've written about Windows licensing and how much it sucks before. But it's getting worse. And what's even worse is that people won't read the EULA and will continue to sign away more and more freedoms. Sigh.

Eugenia

2006-10-31 15:32:45

Agreed. However, such restrictions are going to come more and more. Expect OSX to include weird restrictions at some point too. I wouldn't be surprised if there is going to be a clause about emulation or transfer of Leopard too (to avoid piracy and the fact that people would want to run it on a non-Mac PC). 
 
I am afraid that for total freedom of usage, only Linux or BSD will be good enough.

Adam S

2006-10-31 15:42:30

Eugenia, 
 
I'm sure this will be true. You're probably right, and I'm probably being semi-contradictory, but I feel like with Apple, it's more "ok." Let me explain - the reason for virtualization with Windows is because the damned system gets screwed up so often that sysadmins need to run virtual machines just to test. And at home, it's worthwhile because so many people end up reinstalling Windows over and over. 
 
With Macs, things generally do work. The amount of testing is much less rigorous. I guess I don't feel like the restrictions on a Mac are quite as "impairing." 
 
Morever, Apple tries to sell you either - OS X or OS X Server. None of this six versions to "milk" extra cash out of you bullshit. They don't strip DOWN their OS to try to make 40 more bucks. All people who run OS X run the same thing, and they all paid the same amount.

Eugenia

2006-10-31 20:25:57

I have a USB issue with my current XP (possibly a third party driver bug -- similar problems exist on any OS), but other than that XP is rock solid here. My previous PC hadn't seen an XP re-installation for 3 years (since the moment I first installed it that is). I do not agree that XP is not stable and that it requires lots of re-installations. This is not true anymore.

Adam S

2006-11-01 10:25:36

XP is rock solid here. 
 
Well, I've BASICALLY experienced the same thing. But not everyone runs XP. There are lots of people running Windows 2000 and some people are actually still running Windows 98 and Me. These are machines that can't run XP too well. And that's one reason why it's so important to run virtual machines - you need to test on a bunch of configurations. 
 
Secondly, XP degrades over time in a big way, and this is pretty universal. I've had XP installations for three years that ran just fine, but unlike other OSes, it really easy for new apps to add junk (via registry keys, startup shortcuts, services, etc) to your startup routine. In short, even my work machine - where I'm so paranoid I actually have to accept or decline every cookie - can be slow as a dog when logging in. I have to manually check my services on a semi-regular basis. 
 
Also, XP is not "rock solid" by any stretch. It doesn't crash (or very rarely crashes, at least), this is very true. But it requires a reboot on a normal basis (every week or so at least) to run optimally, and that's real world experience. My OS X box can run for well over a month without any noticeable change in speed or performance. My XP box really likes to have it's memory and cache cleared out by a reboot every few days at longest, and most people I know report the same. 
 
I understand that Windows Vista has revisited how virtual memory works, and that's at least great news.

Waco

2006-11-02 00:10:42

I've had Windows Xp runnung at least 5 years, same install, never a trouble, never a glitch. As far as Vista goes, ms is always trying to gain more power over the user, what to do..

Eric

2006-11-07 18:07:06

When I was still using a PC (I now use an Intel Core Solo Mac mini), I could only run Windows 2000, because the computer I had was ridiculously slow just to get to the login prompt. I understand that XP has speed improvements, but I did not feel like paying $200 just for a new operating system with even more restrictive licensing (I used Virtual PC occasionally to test FreeDOS/OpenGEM, and VPC only works with 2000 Pro, which I had, and XP Pro).

richard

2007-02-11 22:16:30

Use both Mac and PC for work OSX tiger and Win2000. WinXP? tried it, hated and it ditched it. Tired the full verson of Vista, only have this to say, hasta la Vista, baby. 
 
Never understand why people would buy into the Microsoft craps. 
 
R.

loud neighbors suck

2008-06-19 03:24:50

you cannot own windows... but microsoft can own you 
 
that's the future