Microsoft's Virtualization Flip-Flop

I feel a little like a dog who's just had a Milk-Bone dangled in front of his nose, then had it yanked away even as my tail was still wagging. (Okay, terrible metaphor, but read on...)

I've written before about the fact that Microsoft's license agreements for Windows Vista say that only the priciest versions of the OS can be run on a virtual machine via software such as VMWare and Parallels. Microsoft's official stance has been that hardware virtualization (via technology built into Intel and AMD CPUs) leaves PCs open to security risks, and so it wants to discourage everyone except businesspeople and geeks--well heeled ones, apparently--from doing it.

As Mary Jo Foley reports over on ZDNet, Microsoft was on the verge earlier this week of giving into popular demand and loosening the license on cheaper versions of Vista to permit virtualization. It had even briefed some reporters (not including me) on the happy news.

Then it abruptly changed its mind. The anti-virtualization licenses stand. (And it is a licensing issue, not a technical one: All versions of Vista are equally capable of being virtualized.)

It's a weird turn in a mini-drama that's been confusing from the start. Even after talking to Scott Woodgate, the Microsoft exec you usually see quoted in stories on virtualization--which I did a few months ago for the story I linked to above--I was left with questions. Such as...

Why the "virtualization is risky, so we'll make it expensive" approach? I can't think of another example of Microsoft or any other technology company using this reasoning. There are lotsa dangerous things you can do in Windows; other than virtualization, Microsoft doesn't tell you not to do any of them simply because you paid less for your copy of the OS.

If virtualization is so dangerous, shouldn't Microsoft do things other than impose license restrictions to discourage it? Not only does the company offer its own competitor to VMWare and Parallels, it gives it away. Doesn't that just encourage this unsafe practice? Shouldn't Virtual PC's FAQ warn the great unwashed away?

How dumb does Microsoft think we all are? You don't need to be Supergeek to worry about security--millions of technological laymen and laywomen competently take steps to fight viruses, spyware, hackers, phishers, and other Internet threats. And if virtualization-based attacks are so devious that they can't be detected, then advanced users and businesses can't do anything about them, either.

And as of today, I also wonder why would Microsoft almost backtrack on virtualization, then un-backtrack back to its original position? I haven't got a clue. Theories welcome...

I don't meant to beat up on the Redmondians too much--its virtualization policy is less extreme than that of Apple, which to date has simply prevented the virtualization of Mac OS X on any hardware, Apple or otherwise, period. (Which is why you can run a virtual Vista machine inside OS X, but you can't put OS X inside OS X.) But as far as I know, Apple has maintained a sphinxlike silence on its reasoning. Microsoft hasn't--it's said and done things that have muddied matters further.

And one last question: With Microsoft now doubling down on its normal-folks-shouldn't-virtualize policy, is there any chance it'll change its mind in the future, absent new Intel and AMD chips with approaches to hardware virtualization that address its security worries?