That's because you need access to the TPM chip, which the VM doesn't
provide. This is not a license restriction, it's a technical one.
If that were the case then they wouldn't need the EULA to enforce it. And
by the way I notice that they don't have these supposed TPM concerns
with the more expensive Vista Ultimate.
Of all the people I know with PC's (hundreds) NONE of them use their PC
for a media center. If they have something, they have a dedicated TiVo.
Few people want to put their PC in their living room next to their TV,
or want to tax their PC's power with constant video processing. It's
frankly, a dedicated function in my opinion.
Microsoft's marketers would seem to disagree.
)
That has always been the case. In most cases, the "additional software"
is an OEM copy of Nero or EZ DVD Creator that comes with it.
That was fine when DVD's were new. Nowadays DVD-burner interfaces have
been standardized and writing to a DVD is as casual an operation as
writing to a floppy was in the 80's.
They're not using it today, despite freely available downloads of bot
VMWare and Microsoft's VM software. Anyone using VM software is a power
user.
That doesn't help when the Windows EULA prevents multiple installations on
the same machine without buying another Windows license, and WPA is used
to enforce that. OEM Windows, which most home machines now come with, also
discourages VM use. Even though the VM software is running on the
licensed hardware, getting a BIOS-locked Windows to install on a VM is a
real PITA. If the installer is a rescue CD then one may well have to
install to a HD, image that with Ghost, and write the Ghosted image to the
VM's hard drive just to get Windows installed. Then you still have to
persuade MS to cough up an activation code for a BIOS-locked copy of
Windows installed on the VM's nonrecognized BIOS.
That may be, but end users will look at the features and the cost and
decide what's right for their pocket book. By the way, Extremetech is
an "extreme" ie, gamers and enthusiests site, not something aunt martha
is reading.
What's that got to do with the independent Goldman Sachs analysis that was
quoted?
These sites are doing people a disservice. Aero is not that big of a
deal really, and most users simply won't use media center. It's
pointless if you don't have a TV card in your PC.
You're out of phase with Microsoft's marketers again.
)
Aero I'll agree with. It's nothing but eye candy and exacts a heavy toll
in hardware overhead. In today's world, something like Media Center
should be part of any modern consumer OS, albeit minus the Digital
Restrictions Management "improvements" that Microsoft keeps trying to
shove down its users' throats.
Of course they're going to try and persuade you to buy the premium
versions. Just like GM is going to persuade you to buy the ultimate
sound system with satellite radio and leather seats.
Neither the article nor the quoted analysis by Goldman Sachs was part of
a sales pitch. Also similar conclusions are reached by other market
research outfits.
The only way this will happen is if OEM's choose to make Vista Premium
the default version. Most users would rather save the money if given
the option.
Sure, that's why Microsoft has their little instant-upgrade program,
because almost nobody is going to upgrade. said:
I agree, but that defeats your argument.
No it doesn't.
Your arguing that VM rights are needed because most end users will need
them. I argue that whether or not such rights are included, most users
won't use it.
IMO most users could benefit from VM technology if only to fully isolate
Internet activities from their personal data, but it's not necessary to my
point for "most" to actually adopt VM technology. It's sufficient that
some nontrivial percentage of users will want to run Vista Home on VM's
and that, since MS didn't contribute significantly to the VM capability,
those users shouldn't have to pay MS $200 extra just to run Windows in a
VM.
Are you really that lacking in reading comprehension skills?
No, I'm just ignoring your attempt to recast the original point to
something different that you can win. I never said home users would be
doing super-highly technical things in a VM. Trying out a downloaded
program in a VM to see if it's safe, separating your kids' activities from
critical tax data by giving them their own VM for schoolwork, or confining
Internet activities safely to a VM are not technical uses and do not
require highly technical skills. Anyone who can install Windows can do
these things.
You've seen someone with no technical experience seek out and acquire
Virtual Machine software, install it, install a new copy of their OS,
and utilize it for very technical reasons?
Why is this so amazing? Haven't you known people who sought out, procured,
and installed desktop publishing software, spreadsheets, graphics editors,
and the like on their own? VM technology is not that complicated. It's
nothing but the OS they know running in a simulated machine. Anyone who
can install Windows (or Linux) can set up a VM. Heck, even those
artsy-fartsy Apple users run Windows in virtual machines. Having gone that
far, many are now playing around with Linux and other operating systems in
VM's. Yet you think it's too complicated for Windows users?
I don't believe you. Sorry, I just don't. Virtual Machines are a
subject most users can't even grasp.
ROFL! If Virtual Machines are over peoples' heads, then an application
as complex as MS Office is *way* over people's heads!
They don't know understand what "virtual" means in this context. I
know this for a fact because i've spent the last year trying to explain
the concept to a variety of users.
One of my clients makes very heavy use of VMWare ESX servers. In most
cases we simply stop trying to convince them if they don't get it and
just tell them there are multiple physical computers in there.
And yet, even Apple users have been installing VM software on OS-X and
running Windows in virtual machines...
You're a power user, not an average user. The fact that you're even on
usenet is a testament to that.
Which neither answers nor even acknowledges the question that was posed.
I don't really care what their reasons are. The fact of the matter is,
the license restricts it.
And the fact the license restricts something they didn't contribute to
shows how greedy they are - which is all I've been saying. I'm not even
saying they don't have the right to be greedy, just that people are fools
to think that Microsoft does anything for the good of anyone but
themselves.
