Looks like this thread is full of bad news, and I shall let it
be. Let the bashing begins! 
Microsoft Tells Some Users No on Vista
After years of delays and billions in development and marketing
efforts, it would seem that Microsoft Corp. would want anyone who
possibly can to buy its new Windows Vista operating system. Yet
Microsoft is making it hard for Mac owners and other potentially
influential customers to adopt the software.
Microsoft says the blockade is necessary for security reasons. But
that is disputed. The circumstances might simply reflect a business
decision Microsoft doesn't want to explain.
The situation involves a technology known as virtualization.
Essentially, it lets one computer mimic multiple machines, even
ones with different operating systems. It does this by running
multiple applications at the same time, but in separate realms of
the computer.
Virtualization has long been used in corporate data centers as a
way to increase server efficiency or to test programs in a
walled-off portion of a machine. The technology also has been
available for home users, but often at the expense of the
computer's performance.
But now that Macintosh computers from Apple Inc. use Intel Corp.
chips, just like Windows-based PCs, virtualization programs let Mac
users easily switch back and forth between Apple's Mac OS X
operating system and Windows. That could appeal to Mac enthusiasts
who want access to programs that only work on Windows, including
some games.
Consequently, the launch of Vista seemed to be a good opportunity
for Parallels
Inc., a subsidiary of SWsoft Inc. that sells virtualization
products.
Unlike Apple's free Boot Camp program that lets Windows run on a
Mac, Parallels' $80 virtualization product for Macs does not
require users to have just one operating system running at a time.
Parallels runs Windows in a, well, window on the Mac desktop.
Parallels also sells a $50 version for Windows PCs _ which would
let people run both Vista and its predecessor, Windows XP, so they
can keep programs that aren't yet Vista-compatible.
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.
Macs account for less than 5 percent of personal computers in the
U.S., but Ben Rudolph, Parallels' marketing manager, says they
nonetheless represent a market he's surprised to see Microsoft
present with roadblocks.
"Vista is undeniably cool and undeniably important," Rudolph said.
"This is really an opportunity to reach people who normally
wouldn't be using Windows, whether it would be Mac users or Linux
users."
The least-expensive versions of Vista actually would work in
virtualization programs. But Microsoft wants to restrict it because
of new security holes spawned by the technology, according to Scott
Woodgate, a director in Microsoft's Vista team.
Lately Intel and rival chip-maker Advanced Micro Devices Inc. have
built virtualization-friendly hooks directly into microprocessors.
The goal was to make virtualization work better, but Woodgate
argues that the move created a security flaw _ essentially that
malicious programs can run undetected alongside an operating
system.
Indeed, last year a security analyst showed how
AMD chips with virtualization support made computers vulnerable to
such an attack. (That researcher, Joanna Rutkowska, said she
presumed it would work on Intel-based systems as well, but she
didn't have time to try).
AMD challenged the feasibility of such an attack and said
virtualization did not decrease computer security. Intel concurred;
spokesman Bill Calder called Rutkowska's claims "overstated."
But Microsoft took notice. Woodgate said Microsoft considered
banning virtualizing Vista entirely, on all versions. But
ultimately, he said, his team decided that the most technically
savvy users, or people in companies with tech support, probably
could handle Vista in virtualization programs, while home users
should be steered away.
The prohibition applies not only to third-party virtualization
products like Parallels, but also to Microsoft's own Virtual PC
software, which is available as a free download. (It does not apply
to Apple's Boot Camp product, which is not virtualization
software.)
"We're balancing security and customer choice," Woodgate
said.
However, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that technically
savvy people wouldn't want the less expensive versions of Vista.
Rudolph at Parallels said virtualization customers often just need
the most basic version of Windows possible to let some favored
application run.
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.
Rudolph believes many users will be so confused that they avoid
Vista altogether.
Of course, that's Microsoft's decision to make, and it seems
logical if you buy the security argument.
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."
Rudolph acknowledged that "there's always going to be a security
risk in any piece of software." But he added that if Parallels "was
really not that secure, we would have heard about it
substantially."
And even Rutkowska, who argued that her virtualization attack last
year _ which she called "Blue Pill" - proved a glaring weakness in
the technology, said Microsoft's decision regarding Vista would
make no difference. "I really don't see how Microsoft could use
this mechanism to prevent Blue Pill from loading," she said.
Apple would not take a position: Spokeswoman Lynn Fox said Mac
users who want to run Windows in virtualized programs should ask
the virtualization vendors about security.
Michael Cherry, an analyst with Directions on Microsoft, said
virtualization may indeed introduce new complexities and security
challenges. "But they're not greater than the technical issues
surrounding some of the other features (Microsoft) decided to
include," he said. "I don't buy that virtualization is
dangerous."
Cherry believes what's really going on is that Microsoft wanted to
create more differences between the multiple editions of Vista,
presumably giving people more reason to buy the most expensive
versions.
But Microsoft's Woodgate insisted that this was not a marketing
decision.
"We are absolutely working with our partners to resolve this
security issue," he said.
Google Search
