This is about what I had in mind when I raised the question of possibly violating the Vista EULA. One one level, at least, it seems like the prohibition against using any but the most expensive versions of Vista with Parallels virtual machine software is just Bill Gates and company being a**holes again.
Microsoft claims their reason for the prohibition is that the "home" versions of Vista do not provide as much security as the business editions. But if the home versions are not secure enough, A) why is MS selling it; B) why doesn't it prohibit the use of the less secure XP with Parallels; C) why is is less secure running under Parallels than in any other configuration? One could also argue that the business versions do not contain security features applicable to home users anyway. Of course, some will say it doesn't matter what MS's reasons are, good or evil. The EULA is the EULA, take it or leave it. I come down somewhere in the middle of this argument; both sides have a point. Still, all things being equal, I'd rather not use the program if it isn't supported by the company. In particular, I was worried there'd be a problem with the installation and I wouldn't get any support from Parallels, which also does not support Vista home edition installations. So I went with Boot Camp. (I couldn't get Boot Camp to work till I defragmented my hard drive, but that's another thread.) -- Again, if there is no reason to believe that the EULA applies or even makes sense, then following it is immoral. If someone explains to you that the grocery store puts a EULA on the back of every receipt, and it specifically says that none of the medium or lower priced varieties of food are allowed to be served to your family or guests, would you then say "I guess I won't serve hamburger any more unless I am home alone." And then jump on the people who continue to buy hamburger and serve it to their children as being immoral wretches? Me, I would say that the store is being immoral. And the EULA wouldn't hold up in most courts of law. And I would say the moral stand is to serve whatever food you buy from them to whomever you want. That is the moral stand. -- John DeCarlo, My Views Are My Own ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************ ------ End of Forwarded Message ************************************************************************ * ==> QUICK LIST-COMMAND REFERENCE - Put the following commands in <== * ==> the body of an email & send 'em to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <== * Join the list: SUBSCRIBE COMPUTERGUYS-L Your Name * Too much mail? Try Daily Digests command: SET COMPUTERGUYS-L DIGEST * Tired of the List? Unsubscribe command: SIGNOFF COMPUTERGUYS-L * New address? From OLD address send: CHANGE COMPUTERGUYS-L YourNewAddress * Need more help? Send mail to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************************************************ * List archive at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ * RSS at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/maillist.xml * Messages bearing the header "X-No-Archive: yes" will not be archived ************************************************************************
