Among Microsoft's new restrictions in the Windows Vista End User License Agreement (EULA) is that neither Windows Vista Home Basic nor Windows Vista Home Premium may be run in a Virtual Machine. Like Windows Rootkits there is a risk that a VM Rootkits gets installed unbeknownst to the consumer. Microsoft says that consumers don’t understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks running Vista on a VM. So Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.

But this is a license restriction, not a technical one. So a consumer that wants to run Windows Vista under Parallels or VMWare on his or her Mac can purchase a Home SKU and install it on a VM in violation of the EULA (not that most of them will know it; who really reads the EULA?). The other option is to pay Microsoft $300 for Windows Vista Business or $399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of $200 for Home Basic or $239 for Home Premium. Does paying $60 or $100 more mean they understand the risks? We suppose that to Microsoft it does. Or maybe for the extra money, Microsoft just doesn't care as much.