http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/104107/vista-home-virtualisation-is-a-technology-tax-parallels.html

Those are two seperate issues, aren't they? Some G3 iMacs with plenty of RAM can run Panther fine. Mac OS X, just like Windows, does better with more RAM. In the case of Mac OS X, al least, less RAM means that the computer must use virtual memory more often if more applications are open.

Also, check this out:

http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/

Apple my very well modify it's EULA… but for that we'll wait and see..

Now on to your applications that require VT:

1. So you want more backwards compatibility… It's funny because this is something that people will regularly attack Microsoft for. (I point you towards this <a href="http://blog.ncircle.com/blogs/vert/archives/2007/02/tabula_rasa.html&quot; rel="nofollow">blog post</a>)… That is a valid reason, but how many people still use 98 that require our documents… I'm guessing that's a rare occasion.. (then again it may not be). However there's no reason why XP can't be used here… you don't *NEED* Vista.

2. There's no reason why this couldn't also be done on XP… This almost sounds a little business like though. (Web Design is considered a type of business)

3. Again XP will do the trick..

4. This is business related

5. This is hobbyist..

Yes you've pointed out 2 (maybe 3) things that are benefits of VT… Examples of why VT makes your life more convenient.. and I'm not arguing.. I love VT… I never said I didn't… None of those scream 'I need Vista running on VT" though… So XP (which you can virtualize) will work just fine for you… It looks to me like you use VT for the convenience… Microsoft is realizing that people use it for convenience and is now trying to cash in and make some extra money… Most people are willing to pay for extra convenience (raised prices at the Convenience store over the Grocery store is a prime example of this) so why shouldn't they take advantage of this.. it's a benefit of Capitalism and the free market.

Again I'm not debating the usefulness or convenience of VT… I'm trying to figure out why Mac users are crying out that this is an attack on them.. and why they are "unwilling" to pay that extra bit for convenience.. My PC has Linux installed on it, everything else (XP for example) exists in VMs, even my OS X has Virtual PC with XP… but I'm not going to complain that Microsoft is being unfair to me by not allowing me to install Vista Home in a VM on my Linux PC… I'm going to accept that I have to pay a little more for the convenience.

Compare and contrast.

Example: You say say that Microsoft's EULA term is just the same as Apple's. Now, Apple has their term in to make sure that they sell enough of their hardware. Where is Microsoft doing that?

You also say that those who need to run Windows on their Macs should have used Windows right away in one of the comments. If you ignore points like better user interface (this is a matter of taste, of course), better applications, security (never mind MoAB, in practical use it is less of a problem on a Mac than on a PC. Get over it) and so on, then you just might be right. I know you might see this as a long-winded way of calling you ignorant.

But finally: Do you have any idea who Artie MacStrawman is? You might want to read the post where he was invented: http://www.crazyapplerumors.com/?p=664

&gt;&gt;?That says I can’t install OS X on my PC, so why should we expect Microsoft to allow the opposite… In this case, I’d say that Apple hit first and that Microsoft is only responding in kind.

The business models are different. Apple makes computers to run the Apple OS. Microsoft makes an OS to run on other people's computers. Apple makes computers. Why should it matter to Microsoft that you run it under emulation? Microsoft is making people who want to run other OSes in additiona to Windows (in this way) have buy more expensive versions of their software. Because they can, and people who are going to run Windows in emulation will have to buy it. I wouldn't call it a tax, but there is certainly no reason for it. Except for money, of course.

When you see Steven Cobert on Comedy Central, do you think he's *really* trying to be Bill O'Reilly? My guess is you probably don't.

“I love Apple, Mac OS X is invulnerable and I’d jump off a cliff if Steve asked me to.” and “The Mac is utterly impregnable to attack. I’ll never switch to Windows or Ubuntu or something.”

The above is actually satire — The name, 'Artie MacStrawman" is a play on a type of argument called a "strawman" argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman_argument

So, the object of the satire are the people who really believe that mac users believe that their Apple computers are always and in all cases perfect, invulnerable to security attack, etc. That is the strawman argument made by those who claim that mac users are "smug." Some undoubtably are, but so are some PC users.

&gt;&gt;Stealth mode” is nothing more than a gimmicky marketing term… Although you’re right it does have a firewall… wait… so does XP

Stealth mode isn't a gimick, but (from what I've googled) it does appear to need some work. As for the XP firewall, is it enabled by default?

&gt;&gt;Requiring Authorization before an app first runs and to install…Haven’t Mac users been Mocking this and didn’t Apple just release a commercial making fun of this?

Programs that need to do stuff in protected areas should (of course) have to authenticate to install. Most can just be dragged into a folder (as you know.) The point of those commercials is that popping up dialogs for everything you do isn't the answer to the security problem. I don't have stuff like that popping up on my Mac. Do you? (Remember Jaguire? Keychain sure used to be a pain in the ass.)

As for those wifi exploits, those guys didn't really show all their cards, so I'm not inclined to trust some of their insinuations. I know you don't like Gruber, he obviously likes Apple, but I think he tries to be fair. His writeup on that topic was extensive.

And don't the knee jerk reactions of all the internet heroes dissaude you from real discussion. No one cares what they say.

I will address a couple of points on my own, and move on – and I hope people realize that these are not meant to be flames, but in fact are relevant points that I feel need to be shared.

First off, I am almost 36 years old, been playing with computers since I was 12, and have the most experience with Windows-based PCs, with Linux and MacOS having almost equal time as second place. I know PCs better, and have used them longer, and have made my living supporting them because it is the most prevalent technology out there. That being said:

1) The initial debate started over whether Apple users had any more reason to display public outrage at the M$ EULA regarding the non-virtualization allowances for home editions of Vista. Arguments were made back and forth how Apple, it its own licensing statements, were politically motivated or motivated by some other factor because they are making the hardware as well, and thus want to be able to secure that their OS is run on their hardware, whereas the M$ EULA disallows the use of virtualization software of their Home version of Vista.

How can no one see that the motivation to sell more hardware is still a profit motive, when all is said and done? How can no one see that HT's arguments that M$ is providing alternatives, and that the M$ EULA is still *less* restrictive than the Apple License in the first place?

Also, for those arguing that you will need to run Vista for compatibility issues – let me remind you of one very *pertinent fact – and someone illustrated this very well in an earlier post. Mac users say they need to ensure cross-compatibility in an in-house developed spreadsheet, to ensure it works across all platforms in terms of OffixeX and Office 2003 / 2007. Keep in mind, folks, that Office 97, 2000, XP, 2003 *and* 2007 ***ALL RUN ON XP**** – so can you tell me why you *need* Vista again? For the blokes developing *applications* that need to be tested on various platforms, of for those sharing information in documents, spreadsheets, etc. that might run into problems with Vista's enhanced security, I can understand – however, to say that you only need Vista Home editions to test is utterly flawed in the first place, and sure it makes it easier to be able to drop into an OS without having to reboot, but lets face it – if you feel the need to test out your software / data store / whatever in Vista, you probably want to test in more than just the Home – I can see very few times where you would want to test in Home only and not in Business, Enterprise, or Ultimate. So, the arguments pointing to the M$ EULA and calling it [insert deprecatory remark of choice] are pretty much flawed, pointless, and invalid.

2) RE: the use of a modern OS on semi-antiquated hardware:

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&amp;showtopic=12974&amp;view=findpost&amp;p=56483

Yes, quite frankly it can. It helps if you know what you are doing when you build a system instead of buying a cheap, slapped together box from a major marketer whose interest is in making the most profit from the bought-in-bulk POS limited upgradeable hardware.

This is still the same rig that I built, on which I installed Win XP SP1, Fedora Core 2, Debian Etch, Gentoo and Jackass! Gentoo, Ubuntu and Xubuntu, and now Vista RC1, RC2 and Ultimate final (3 days ago!). The same rig. The only upgrades, in terms of hardware, are larger drives (started out with 2 15 GB 5400 rpm and immediately went to 7200 RPM drives for performance, and now have 3 drives – a 120, an 80 and a 60 GB drive, all 7200 RPM), the CD ROM became a Memorex 52MAXX CDRW, and the original 100 Mbit NIC is now a NetGear Gigabit NIC (since I have a Gigabit router and am running Gigabit Ethernet on my internal network). Processor is still the same – P4 2.0(A) GHz Northwood CPU with 512KB L2 Cache, 1 GB matched pair of PC2100 RAM and an nVidia GeForce 4 MX 440 based GA (AGP). Amazingly I was able to install *all* of those OS's – but per Apple's license, I cannot install OS X any way, manner or fashion on this machine without violating the Licensing statement.

Does this help the argument just a little bit?

Enough of this.

OK two last things as I think we have now addressed nearly all your FUD if people bother to read between the flaming and notice what you had no response to.

i) According to your link not only did they need to use an unecessary third party peripheral with Microsoft – style sloppily coded drivers, but they also needed to put the card into active scanning mode.
So they'd need access to the actual Mac and need to be logged in in the first place!
Or happen to be trying to perform their 'hack' when it's in that mode (typically only when you first connect to the local network and for about 30secs)
Wow, what a huge vulnerability. Far worse than those typically reported for any Windows build.
Silly me, it must be Macs that account for all the Bot nets.

ii) I forgot to riposte earlier; Stealth mode.
When visiting a site that is not fully trusted or taking part in an IM/IRC chat surely it's considered more secure to be in a mode where no unauthorised code is exchanged and no details of your platform/browser/net id/IP address are given thus giving malicious people no info to go on about the best way to try and ruin your day.
Not that they can currently do anything to me.
But it's yet another security feature that's provided 'just in case'.

PS it seems to me a lot of your dissatifaction with your Mac Mini boils down to;
a) not enough included memory.

I quite agree they should have more as standard although if you had a comparable Dell with the same specs and Vista it wouldn't do nearly as much at once. Heck it'd hardly run!

b) It doesn't work like a Windows machine so you don't always know where stuff is.

Funnily enough I always find if you put a total novice in front of OSX they're up and running very quickly and are far less hesitant to play with everthing than if you put them in front of a Windows machine.

I also find if you put an MCSE in front of one they complain t'il the cows come home basically cos it's not what they've got used to.
A few simple pointers along the lines of 'why would you have to do that? Just look where it would be sensible to put it, not where you're used to it being. &amp; Just try what seems like a simple way to achieve it." has them saying things like "oh, is that all you do" but usually leaves them unsettled because they haven't clicked through enough dialog boxes or had to do enough typing or selecting.

Oh well, to each his own, but do try and get the facts right.