Limits on Vista...

[Newby]

http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/12/2240214&from=rss

That's fucking stupid as hell.

[iago]

To quote a guy from Slashdot, "Now everyone knows we only have to bother with pirating Vista Ultimate and Vista Business."

[MyndFyre]

You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system

Seems to me that means you can't virtualize it on itself.  That makes pretty damn good sense to me.

[Newby]

At least you can transfer the license once, without having to bug people. I wonder if you can call and change it after that....

And not being able to rip ISOs in the Home Basic = load of shit.

[Towelie]

At least you can transfer the license once, without having to bug people. I wonder if you can call and change it after that....

And not being able to rip ISOs in the Home Basic = load of shit.

God damnit, this is discouraging me from getting vista.

[MyndFyre]

x86] link=topic=7575.msg94420#msg94420 date=1160712661]

At least you can transfer the license once, without having to bug people. I wonder if you can call and change it after that....

And not being able to rip ISOs in the Home Basic = load of shit.

God damnit, this is discouraging me from getting vista.

Whatever man, you wouldn't even get Home Basic.  :P

[Joe]

Now maybe I'm confused here, but aren't Basic version supposed to have Basic features with the Pro versions building on them, nor the Pro having Basic features and Basic lacking them?

[iago]

So, I was doing a lot of thinking (drinking? close enough). And I figured out why the VM thing really sucks. 

Developers generally test their software on all the major (supported) versions of the OS, like XP SP1, XPSP2, home, pro, 2k, 2k3, etc.   The more they test it on, the less chance of it failing on some specific version. 

With Vista, nevermind having 6 different versions to test on to begin with, now some of the versions can't be installed on a VM?  So, to test my software, I have to own a number of different computers to run different versions of Vista on?  That's retarded. 

And what else have they done?  Lock out access to the kernel except to signed drivers.  And it costs good money to sign them.  (And to anybody who says it's to keep out hackers -- I'd bet that they could afford to pay just like anybody else)

What's it sound like they're doing?  Screwing small developers who can't afford a bunch of test systems and can't afford to sign drivers they write. 

[MyndFyre]

How often do you write software and test on Windows, iago?  :P

I do all my testing on XP Professional SP1a and SP2.  I don't bother with Home, because the features that the OS is lacking rarely compromise my application.  Encrypting file system, internet information services, pfft.  Media Center?  Pffft.  Nothing of these should have any impact on my application.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=7575.msg94468#msg94468 date=1160758475]
How often do you write software and test on Windows, iago?  :P

At work, I test everything I write on Windows XP / 2k. 

x86] link=topic=7575.msg94468#msg94468 date=1160758475]
I do all my testing on XP Professional SP1a and SP2.  I don't bother with Home, because the features that the OS is lacking rarely compromise my application.  Encrypting file system, internet information services, pfft.  Media Center?  Pffft.  Nothing of these should have any impact on my application.

Yeah, but they DO impact certain application.  What if you're writing, say, a screensaver?  Or a filesystem driver?

[AntiVirus]

What's it sound like they're doing?  Screwing small developers who can't afford a bunch of test systems and can't afford to sign drivers they write. 

Eliminating competition?  Very sneaky monopoly tactic?

[MyndFyre]

Yeah, but they DO impact certain application.  What if you're writing, say, a screensaver?  Or a filesystem driver?

I still don't see how it would impact either application.

If you're writing a screensaver... so what?  The screensaver is initialized by GINA - whether you're running on a domain or a workgroup, and whether you've got fast user switching enabled, the screensaver application works the same.

If you're writing a file system driver... so what?  Either you're going to be writing a filter driver to run on top of NTFS, or a standalone driver that will have nothing to do with NTFS and therefore the NTFS feature that's missing from Home Edition - EFS.  But either way, the EFS filter makes the encryption transparent to any filters as the IRP moves up the chain.

[iago]

x86] link=topic=7575.msg94476#msg94476 date=1160760650]

Yeah, but they DO impact certain application.  What if you're writing, say, a screensaver?  Or a filesystem driver?

I still don't see how it would impact either application.

If you're writing a screensaver... so what?  The screensaver is initialized by GINA - whether you're running on a domain or a workgroup, and whether you've got fast user switching enabled, the screensaver application works the same.

If you're writing a file system driver... so what?  Either you're going to be writing a filter driver to run on top of NTFS, or a standalone driver that will have nothing to do with NTFS and therefore the NTFS feature that's missing from Home Edition - EFS.  But either way, the EFS filter makes the encryption transparent to any filters as the IRP moves up the chain.

Those were my quick thoughts to come up with one thing that might differ across versions, and another that requires a driver. 

In the first case, the screensaver was a bad example.  But any kind of software that makes use of more obscure libraries that may be included on one or not the other.  I don't know the differences well enough to say, but I'm sure there are some libraries/functions that one version includes that the others don't. 

In the second case, the problem is that the developer has to pay to sign their driver, otherwise the user is not allowed to use it, period.  I think that's totally lame.  How are not-for-profit people, like hobbiests, supposed to learn or do driver development when they aren't allowed to load their drivers at all?

Eliminating competition?  Very sneaky monopoly tactic?

Not really, hobbiests aren't their real competition.  I'm not sure what they're doing, although this Slashdot response sums it up pretty well. 

[AntiVirus]

x86] link=topic=7575.msg94476#msg94476 date=1160760650]

Yeah, but they DO impact certain application.  What if you're writing, say, a screensaver?  Or a filesystem driver?

Eliminating competition?  Very sneaky monopoly tactic?

Not really, hobbiests aren't their real competition.  I'm not sure what they're doing, although this Slashdot response sums it up pretty well. 

It isn't just hobbyist that test their code on other operating systems.  I am sure there are other third party companies that have to try and make their product compatibles with more than just one OS.  Those third party companies are the ones I was referring too.  The things they make the Microsoft also tries to make.  You said it yourself, you test your stuff at work.  I bet you aren't the only person that works for a company that does that. :P

[iago]

You suck at quoting, but I'll forgive you :P

It isn't just hobbyist that test their code on other operating systems.  I am sure there are other third party companies that have to try and make their product compatibles with more than just one OS.  Those third party companies are the ones I was referring too.  The things they make the Microsoft also tries to make.  You said it yourself, you test your stuff at work.  I bet you aren't the only person that works for a company that does that. :P

True enough, though most companies can afford to buy a few test systems (although REALLY small companies, like mine, can't).  Even then, it's just really annoying.  It's mostly just the hobbiests who can't tests properly anymore.