Parallels/Boot Camp questions

[Chad Leigh]

On Dec 3, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Dave Schroeder wrote:

>
> 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

Then they have to re-write the license as the license does not say that.

Chad

>
> ...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?