Parallels/Boot Camp questions

[Dave Schroeder]

On Dec 3, 2006, at 5:27 PM, Chad Leigh wrote:

>
> On Dec 3, 2006, at 2:53 PM, Matt Johnston wrote:
>
>>
>> On 3 Dec 2006, at 19:23, David Zhou wrote:
>>
>>> But AFAIK, the Windows license allows VMs, so it's possible to  
>>> active twice with the same copy of XP.
>>
>> Didn't Vista remove this? For all but Premium?
>
> Not if you read the license literally.  It only applies to using a  
> VM on the licensed device and OS X / Mac is not a licensed device  
> until WinV is installed on it and you cannot install on it unless  
> maybe using bootcamp.  On explanation I read was to stop the same  
> copy of windows from being the VM host and the OS running in the VM.

That's what I thought to. Unfortunately that's not the case:

http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,61969665,00.htm

...and an exchange I had with Paul Thurrott, below. The bottom line  
is that the restriction is arbitrary, and is probably designed to  
prevent people from installing the low-cost versions of Vista in  
virtual machine environments they don't understand, and then  
expecting support directly from Microsoft for things that Microsoft  
really isn't responsible for.

- Dave

-----

From: thurrott at gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:34:07 AM CDT
To: das at doit.wisc.edu

Yeah, that's what they told me. My guess is that they don't want people
purchasing the low-cost versions, installing them on virtual machine
environments they don't understand (like Parallels) and then demanding
support.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das at doit.wisc.edu]
Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:31 AM
To: Paul Thurrott
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?

So Microsoft actually does intend the EULA to prohibit someone from,
say, buying Vista Home as a retail box and then installing it in
Parallels Desktop on a Mac? (I know there is nothing technical
preventing that.)

This still seems curious, given that in that scenario, not only does
Vista Ultimate allow VM use, but also includes an additional license
specifically so that same copy can be installed in a VM on the same
device. Why wouldn't Home's license allow a single instance of itself
to be used in a VM as long as it's not already installed somewhere
else? The language all revolves around "the software installed on the
licensed device", and I take that to mean the software *already*
installed on that device, but I suppose that could be argued to mean
that it can't be installed on *any* device where it would be used in
a virtualization environment...

- Dave

On Oct 23, 2006, at 8:23 AM, Paul Thurrott wrote:

> Microsoft told me that the retail EULA forbids the installation of  
> Windows
> Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in virtual machines. They said  
> that if
> developers wanted to do this, they should get an MSDN subscription,  
> which
> has a different license allowing such an install. All that said,  
> there's
> nothing technical from preventing users from installing any Vista  
> version in
> a virtual machine.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Schroeder [mailto:das at doit.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, October 23, 2006 9:15 AM
> To: thurrott at windowsitpro.com
> Subject: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
>
> Paul,
>
> In reading about Vista virtualization, it occurred to me that all
> this may be a result of the incorrect interpretation of the EULA:
>
> Microsoft's Vista EULA says:
>
> "4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the
> software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or
> otherwise emulated) hardware system."
>
> This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside
> a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
>
> This DOES NOT mean you can't use it by itself in a virtualization
> product on any platform. If that instance of Vista is not installed
> anywhere else, there is no preexisting "licensed device".
>
> The reason this is included in the EULA is because Vista Business and
> Ultimate actually include additional licenses specifically so the
> same license can be used to also run in a virtualization environment
> on the same device where Vista is already installed.
>
> The higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of
> virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.
>
> In any case, by my reading, this means all versions of Vista can
> still be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such
> as Parallels or VMWare.
>
> [1] This means "the software" (i.e., Vista Home Basic or Premium) is
> already installed on a licensed device.
>
> [2] The "licensed device" is the device that Vista Home is already
> installed on, and that license may not be reused to also install it
> in a virtualization environment, which you CAN do with Vista Business
> and Ultimate, because Microsoft includes additional licenses
> specifically for virtualization use, which is why there are all these
> specifics about virtualization use on the lower end Vista versions in
> the EULA in the first place.
>
> Thoughts?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2380 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/archive/macosx-talk/attachments/20061203/e56c712a/smime.bin