Text 30012, 59 rader
Skriven 2007-03-23 12:08:04 av Alan Zisman (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 29993 av ROBERT FOWLER (1:123/140)
Ärende: Upgrade, no !
=====================
On Thu, 22 Mar 2007 23:07:00 -0500, ROBERT FOWLER -> ALAN ZISMAN wrote:

 -=>> ALAN ZISMAN wrote to CHARLES SCAGLIONE <=-

 AZ>>> I'm finding virtualization (using Parallels Desktop) a much more
 AZ>>> convenient way to run Windows software on my iMac, since it doesn't
 AZ>>> require a reboot, and allows the Mac to be used (with Mac software) at
 AZ>>> the same time...

 CS>> That would be our first choice but we are concerned about the MS EULA.
 CS>> I'm not certain if the XP EULA also restricts its use in a virtual
 CS>> session.  (I need to do some research.) The Vista EULA clearly does
 CS>> not allow either Home edition to be run in a virtual session.

 AZ>> No restrictions of this sort in the XP EULA (Pro or Home)... that's
 AZ>> part of why the restrictions on Vista Home have been noteworthy.

 RF>   In all fairness though, that's pretty much a matter of timing.  There
 RF>   also seems to me to be some validity to their argument that the majority
 RF>   of users of VM would probably want/need the Business/Ultimate features,
 RF>   although there might be a few home users, like yourself.  CS clearly
 RF>   is one of their feared exceptions. :-)

 RF>   It's also quite noteworthy that while Jobs has labored to run
 RF>   Windows on his products, he hasn't even blinked at returning
 RF>   the favor. ;-)


Certainly, virtualization has become a big deal in IT-- at least if
you count the number of column inches it's getting in IT industry
publications like eWeek and InfoWorld.

Agreed that it isn't a core technology for home Windows users... but
it IS becoming a must-have technology for many home Mac users-- I
discussed yesterday the non-techie home user I helped who need access
to Windows IE 6 for her work. Jean's pilot son would probably be
another example of a Mac user whose work requires part-time access
to a Windows system from home.

These are the people who are grumbling...

re. your last note-- given that Apple is primarily in the hardware
business while Microsoft is primarily in the software business, it
makes perfect sense. Running Windows on a Mac provides a sale for
Microsoft; running Mac OS X on a PC replaces a high-profit Mac hardware
sale with a low-profit Apple OS sale... it's obviously not in
Steve Jobs' business interest.

That's the same reason why one of Jobs' first actions when he returned
as Apple CEO in 97/98 was to cancel the Mac-clone license agreements...
Rather than growing the overall market for Mac-OS systems, the clones
were actually low-cost alternatives that were eating into Apple's
hardware sales.
 ===================
email: alan (at) zisman (dot) ca
web: www.zisman.ca

--- Pan/0.14.2.91 (As She Crawled Across the Table (Debian GNU/Linux))
 * Origin: The Eastern Star - Fidonet Via Your Newsreader (1:123/789.0)