Microsoft is making it hard for Mac owners and other potentially influential customers to adopt the software.
March 3, 2007 (Press Release) --
After years of delays and billions in development and marketing efforts, it would seem that Microsoft 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. Some experts contend that the circumstances simply reflect a business decision Microsoft does not want to explain.
The situation involves a technology known as virtualization. Essentially, it lets one computer mimic multiple machines, even ones that have 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 use Intel 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 introduction of Vista seemed to be a good opportunity for Parallels, a subsidiary of SWsoft that sells virtualization products.
Unlike Apple's free Boot Camp program that lets Windows run on a Mac, an $80 virtualization product for Macs that is offered by Parallels 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 are not yet Vista-compatible.
The price of the virtualization software does not include a copy of Windows. And to get that copy, buyers must 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.
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 its biggest chip- making rival, Advanced Micro Devices, 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 did not have time to try).
AMD challenged the feasibility of such an attack and said virtualization did not decrease computer security. Intel concurred. Bill Calder, one of its spokesmen, 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 does not seem to be much evidence that technically savvy people would not want the less expensive versions of Vista.
Ben Rudolph, Parallels' marketing manager, 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 maintains that many users will be so confused that they avoid Vista altogether.
Of course, that is a decision for Microsoft 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 VMWare, a maker of virtualization software that plans to release a product for Macs this summer.
Apple would not take a position. Lynn Fox, a spokeswoman, 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 might indeed introduce complexities and security challenges.
"But they're not greater than the technical issues surrounding some of the other features" that Microsoft decided to include in Vista, he said. "I don't buy that virtualization is dangerous."
Cherry says that what is 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 Woodgate of Microsoft insisted that this was not a marketing decision.
"We are absolutely working with our partners to resolve this security issue," he said.
Author: Brian Bergstein
Source: http://www.iht.com/
Microsoft says the blockade is necessary for security reasons. But that is disputed. Some experts contend that the circumstances simply reflect a business decision Microsoft does not want to explain.
The situation involves a technology known as virtualization. Essentially, it lets one computer mimic multiple machines, even ones that have 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 use Intel 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 introduction of Vista seemed to be a good opportunity for Parallels, a subsidiary of SWsoft that sells virtualization products.
Unlike Apple's free Boot Camp program that lets Windows run on a Mac, an $80 virtualization product for Macs that is offered by Parallels 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 are not yet Vista-compatible.
The price of the virtualization software does not include a copy of Windows. And to get that copy, buyers must 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.
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 its biggest chip- making rival, Advanced Micro Devices, 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 did not have time to try).
AMD challenged the feasibility of such an attack and said virtualization did not decrease computer security. Intel concurred. Bill Calder, one of its spokesmen, 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 does not seem to be much evidence that technically savvy people would not want the less expensive versions of Vista.
Ben Rudolph, Parallels' marketing manager, 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 maintains that many users will be so confused that they avoid Vista altogether.
Of course, that is a decision for Microsoft 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 VMWare, a maker of virtualization software that plans to release a product for Macs this summer.
Apple would not take a position. Lynn Fox, a spokeswoman, 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 might indeed introduce complexities and security challenges.
"But they're not greater than the technical issues surrounding some of the other features" that Microsoft decided to include in Vista, he said. "I don't buy that virtualization is dangerous."
Cherry says that what is 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 Woodgate of Microsoft insisted that this was not a marketing decision.
"We are absolutely working with our partners to resolve this security issue," he said.
Author: Brian Bergstein
Source: http://www.iht.com/
Email
Print
Download
SPAM
LEAVE A COMMENT
