What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
187 Comments
- Phocion55, on 10/10/2007, -11/+148Once again....Microsoft puts itself above their customers.
When will people realize that 90% of "MS bashing" is clearly justifiable?
I'm completely blown away with people who have the "I guess that's just the way it is" attitude. My job is to deliver the best and most effective IT solutions possible. Sometimes it's Microsoft. Sometimes it's not.
The times it's NOT Microsoft.....they throw up roadblocks in attempts to force me back to their product - whether it be FUD, legal papers, reduced/broken functionality, needless upgrades, etc. This is NOT how you do business. These illegal business methods stall innovation and hurt technology in the long-run.
Sometimes Microsoft makes my job A LOT harder. Not easier. That's my major gripe.
It's time to look past the "Linux fanboy-ism" and see the facts. This has more to do with technology as a whole rather than just Linux.
"Somebody needs to remind Microsoft that it's no longer alone on the desktop - and it can't bully users like it used to. " - 4DFX, on 10/10/2007, -4/+66Nothing unexpected.
Of course I will still do it on my computer no matter what they say. MS can suck my **** - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+40All Microsoft wants is for you to pay for their software as many times as possible.
- CarbideTipped, on 10/10/2007, -2/+31The funny thing is you never really own the software.
- livevil, on 10/10/2007, -4/+28Ew, you might get AIDs.
- halleyscomet, on 10/10/2007, -5/+27Yet more reason to invest more time in beta testing ReactOS and Wine.
- aldenhg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+24I'd love to see them try and stop me.
- ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+18Why do you all act like Microsoft isn't already screwing you.
- dmoney22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15As with most software. Actually, pretty much all software.
- sinatosk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+17heh someone mentioned to me ( I havn't read Microsoft's EULA yet ) that when you purchase a copy Microsoft Windows 98/2000/XP/Vista... your buying a licence to use it...you don't actually own it..
- jokr004, on 10/10/2007, -1/+15being an MS rep at linuxworld must be what its like to be hated by just about everyone
- BLyn, on 10/10/2007, -8/+21http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -8/+20Microsoft doesn't understand why it's having trouble in the desktop market, well this is part of the problem MS has become what they hated most, IBM. They are trying to force users down upgrade paths (DX10 and Vista) by bundling in software that is "Vista Only." Not only is this slimy business, but down right dirty.
Oh and let's not forget the fact that MS actually breaks functionality on purpose (re: Halloween Documents) so that any other product won't work with theirs.
The end of the MS monopoly is quite near. - Ninjab3ar, on 10/10/2007, -4/+16Apple only allows you to run OS X on "apple-branded" hardware, meaning only Macs. Microsoft is basically doing what Apple has been doing for years.
- ejdmoo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13From the article:
"Note: This article has been updated to remove initial references to "blocking" virtualization. VMWare and other products can virtualize Windows on Linux, but Microsoft's basically saying "good luck!" " - dbavirt, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16rtfa. The article says they are not supporting it, says nothing about preventing it. Buried, inaccurate.
- brianbennett, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16That's rediculous! I mean, you can do this with OSX... right?
- Degriz, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Well they would, wouldnt they..
- madk, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11I will let you Apple fans speak as soon as Apple will let me virtualize OS X on Windows.
- serpicolugnut, on 10/10/2007, -2/+11Running Windows in virtualization is the only way I will run Windows. I have three Macs and one Ubuntu box (our HTPC). All will run WindowsXP in a VM just fine. The Macs are running both Parallels and VirtualBox, and the Ubuntu machine is running VirtualBox.
With per machine license fees and the ever present risk of viruses and spyware, why would you run Windows in anything other than a VM? With a VM, if Windows gets hosed, I can restore from a backup VM image inside of 5 minutes. - Tweekster, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12And why exactly do i give a ***** what microsoft wants?
- websyndicate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9I thought the deal was you could only Virtualize the Ultimate Edition. I thought I said that in the EULA
- mojaam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Yeh, how surprising a company like Microsoft are not for virtualizing Windows on something non-Microsoft. Stunning.
- AlmostEvil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And this is why VMWare are the kings of virtualisation software, rather than saying "no, we won't support virtualising that or this" they simply make their product the best it can possibly be.
Look at Virtual PC, it's fine for basic virtualisation of windows.. but the moment you want to do anything advanced or anything involving an OS other than windows you'll start hitting speedbumps and issues. - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11They are simply not actively not supporting technologies like Xen, they are not actively inhibiting technologies like standard virtualization with VMware. Though I thought that Xen virtualization support was supposed to be part of the "interoperability" deal I don't see how not supporting it is anti-competitive monopolistic abuse. It seems that you are great at reading comprehension and skepticism when it comes to articles that falsely misrepresent facts when the FUD is aimed at OSS and are quick to bring out your quoting syntax when siting conflicting sources but it really hurts the credibility of valid claims against Microsoft when you blindly support FUD in the other direction. You are one of the most vocal "open source advocates" and therefore a de-facto representative of that movement. Please don't make people think that the rest of us are so ignorant and gullible. Either that or break out your quotes and prove how *this* specifically is "monopoly abuse of the worst kind" because I can think of much worse abuses, and much better arguments against Microsoft's tactics and by representing this as such you diminish their power.
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7By putting its customers second to making money in the short term, they will probably make less money in the long term.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8did you even read the article? didn't think so
- MioTheGreat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9Uh.
Wow. Does anyone actually READ these things? No where does it say that Microsoft is going stop you from doing it (Well, I don't think you're allowed to virtualize Home Premium or below of Vista, but most virtualization is servers, or the business/ultimate editions anyway, so I don't care.)
Not supporting it, and blocking it are two totally different things. - trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8No and I think that it greatly limits the utility of OSx, especially for server use. Don't assume that just because people bash Microsoft that they magically love Apple, or FLOSS for that matter.
- thcobbs, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9I don't know... MS is one big bitch.... you may not want that hanging around you so much. Your friends will start talking.
- zadadka, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8I'm afraid they can, and increasingly will.
As an example, have you tried installing Office 2007 into a Terminal Services environment?
Uh-uhhh....you can't do that.....anything from MS that now requires Activation will simply not work in a TS deployment...without the special CALs that is...yeah, you can buy them, nice bonus revenue stream for Seattle there....
It's really just a matter of When, not If, they do this for virtualisation platforms (other than their own)...though of course, CAL's won't be available for other platforms, since there is "arguably high risk of Microsoft Windows License abuse in such event".... - Kyderdog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+11Yes, but after you got it installed how long before he started bitching about Ubuntu?
- init100, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7@dr3d
Obviously more than they expected to sell. That's why they are accelerating the process to offer them in Europe, according to Dell themselves. - arbulus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9No.
I believe Apple explicitly said that they would not allow virtualization. I believe it was in response to some folk who figured out how to run OS X through Parallels on Windows, and the Paralells folk asked Apple if this was ok and they said no. And then Paralles issued a statement saying they do not support or endorse running OS X with their software. - aldenhg, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Activation? It's a virtual machine! I can make it think whatever I want! Besides, who can't easily find a WGA/Activation crack these days?. My point is that I've bought the software and I will do with it what I please and there isn't a damn thing they can do about it short of coming into my home and breaking my install CD. Even then, there's bittorrent and TinyXP.
- NoOneButMe, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7It's not "on linux" - it's in general. You cant virtualize windows on windows if the license doesnt allow it. According to MS at least.
- geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5The one thing that you missed is that Apple has no gripe either with you virtualizing OS X, as long as you do so /on a Mac/; if you want to run Windows and boot Mac OS X inside of it on your iMac, feel free to do so, they're not going to stop you, and there's nothing in their license agreement that forbids this. [Hell, they even provide a tool to *help* you do this if you so choose].
- NSMike, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9I don't run into MS fanboys all that often... I'm not sure who you've run into that defends MS. I think MS is improving and being more careful, but I'm not foolish enough to believe that if the scrutiny they're under lets up for more than a millisecond they won't go back to their old ways.
- specialK16, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Yes, and the ***** genius who first thought that stepping over customers to get some extra cash was a good business approach is to blame for all the crap fest corporate America is on now days.
- TheZorch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Microsoft's days are numbered with more and more developers porting their software to Mac and Linux. The recent news that EA is commited to making games for the Mac is part of this trend. So is the shift by game developers from DirectX to OpenGL & OpenAL. Both work on Linux and Mac.
- lornefs, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Uhm, can I run OSX virtualized on Linux?
This is just another MS bashing session.
What a waste of time. - OBKenobi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Dupe.
http://digg.com/tech_news/No_XP_Vista_Virtualization_for_Linux - Ninjab3ar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7I'm telling...
- 9a3eedi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Why are you pissed at someone giving some friendly advice?
- GreatDrok, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6"Apple has the same policy jerkwad."
Not quite, MS sells you a copy of Windows to run on your computer. Apple sells you a computer and includes an operating system as part of the deal. The fact that you don't want to buy a Mac is your decision, Apple doesn't sell OS X for any old computer, the Mac and OS X are a combined product so why should you expect to be able to buy just the OS? It's Apple's decision since they really don't make any money off the software and without the hardware sales they wouldn't be able to develop it so by demanding that you can buy OS X and install it on any old computer you are effectively saying you want OS X to die which it would unless it went completely open source which it won't.
If I want to run Windows on a virtual computer I don't think MS really has the right to stop me since a computer is a computer, even a virtualised one. On the other hand, there is no such thing as a virtual Mac (legally anyway) so running OS X under virtualisation is a non-issue.
At the moment I am running Windows XP Pro (legally bought), CentOS 4.5 and OS X.4.10 all on my MacBook Pro. Works for me. If you choose to buy something other than a Mac you can also run Linux but you can't run OS X. To me as a system admin a Mac is the most cost effective tool. - geminitojanus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Why would I blame the vendor for using an API, why can't I blame the API's creator for not making it work with their own software? There's nothing technical stopping this from happening (in fact, this has already been proven; XP machines are running DirectX 10 stuff with some simple software shims), it's all a "perceived" necessity, manufactured by Microsoft to sell Vista. It's a slimy business tactic that shouldn't be legal from someone who has a monopoly and has been convicted of Monopoly abuse.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7When MS says they aren't supporting it that means they are going to break everything so it will be prevented.
- HigherLogic, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9Wait, MS has trouble in the desktop market?! I mean, I could understand Linux here, but do you read what you type?
- jddssc121, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7bury. inaccurate. go read the flippin' article before you start ranting about how it sucks. Microsoft isn't banning it. They even updated the article to say so.
Note: This article has been updated to remove initial references to "blocking" virtualization. VMWare and other products can virtualize Windows on Linux, but Microsoft's basically saying "good luck!" - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8How am I forced to upgrade to Vista? Uh, hello? You do know the DX10 is "Vista Only." So that means any app that uses DX10 only (doesn't include the hooking into the DX9 API) will be Vista only, right? So that means you are forced to upgrade to Vista to use those apps. Better yet, because of slimy business wtih OEM vendors, it's still VERY hard to get an XP machine through a major vendor.
Keep on talking though so you keep on looking stupid. -
Show 51 - 100 of 188 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is