Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

As first noted in a HardMac forum post (http://forum.hardmac.com/index.php?showtopic=159&st=0&p=917&#entry917), it appears Microsoft is specifying in its license agreements that the ability to operate in a virtualized environment is prohibited in Home Basic and Home Premium editions, leaving users to have to purchase either the Business or the Ultimate versions of the software to legally run in a virtualized environment.

Mac users have found virtualization solutions such as Parallels Desktop a good way to switch between Mac OS X and Windows. This latest news from Microsoft may inhibit some use of the software as Business and Ultimate editions range from $300-400 verses Home Basic's $200 price point (prices (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060829093154.shtml)).

Microsoft's EULA agreements can be found here (http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx).

[daveschroeder]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.

[Abstract]

As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.

[countach]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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.


The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

[themacolyte]

Microsoft seems to be making every attempt to encourage piracy at this point. Is it possible for Windows to check this and refuse to run? It seems to me Microsoft is attempting to take control of hardware virally, i.e. if their EULAs were enforceable they are including statements that allow them to dictate what hardware you have and when/how you upgrade it...

"If you want to upgrade your computer, you need to call and ask us first. If you want to run our software, it better be on hardware we approve of, ask us who sells that."

There are some who claim that as long as Microsoft doesn't enforce their own EULAs then let them say what they want. Some will claim that the EULAs won't hold up in court so who cares what they say. Is it prudent to assume this and just hope for the best?

[Pragmatic67]

just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?

[Ktulu]

If Vista can run soley in a virtuallized environment without breaking the EULA, but not be installed on a machine that also is using it in a virtualized way. How does this affect anyone-(Mac or PC)?

If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:

Very confused about how this affects anyone?

[andiwm2003]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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.

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.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.


that sounds more reasonable to me. i'm not a lawyer but i thought in most countries it would be not legal to restrict the software use to certain hardware settings after you bought a full version.

[Scarlet Fever]

As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.There are usage restrictions? :rolleyes: joking...


seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?

[daveschroeder]

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses to also run the same licensed copy of Vista running natively on the licensed device in a virtualization environment as well.

In other words, if you purchase or build a PC with Windows Vista Ultimate, you can use that same installation and license to install it in a virtualization environment on that same platform. That goes beyond what has been done on any other platform for virtualization, and why the limitation is specifically delineated on Vista Home:

You may not use the software installed[1] on the licensed device[2] within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

[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.

The Vista Business/Ultimate EULA on the same topic states:

6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If
you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital,
information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management
services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications
protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights
management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

This is because Vista Business and Ultimate include additional licenses so that you can use the same copy, legally ALSO within a virtualization environment on that same system. This is more than is possible with any other commercial OS, from a licensing perspective. The restrictions on Vista Home are ONLY restricting you from using it in a VM on the device where it's already installed. If you buy Vista Home standalone as a retail box, and it's not installed anywhere else, you are free, legally and technically, to use it in a VM to your heart's content.

[daveschroeder]

just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?

It's neither, as I've already explained.

But to answer your question, even if there were a legal restriction, there is definitely not any technical restriction that would prevent it from being installed in a VM anywhere.

[SiCbe]

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:



well I would want to install Vista in bootcamp to play games... and the same one under parallels to be able to do simple tasks in windows without having to reboot OSX... :-) until parallels comes up with that 3d enabled version we'll have to install it twice ;-)

[Blackcat]

B ULLSHIT.

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

It's legalise. It's saying you can't run it in a VM on a device it is already installed on, or a VM on another device than it is installed on. If the VM is another OS (or another Vista license) you're allowed providing it's the only installation.

[AnyKey]

Well then...if this is the case, who needs XP or Vista? I may just install Windows RG on my macbook pro when I get it. And yes...we educated Windows RG users use only the best hardware. I'll be waiting for C2D too. :)

For me, it's either Mac OS Windows RG. :rolleyes:

For a preview of Windows RG: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

:D ;)

[Maestro64]

Obviously, if they are saying you are not allow, that means they can not stop you from doing so. It's a simple warning beacuse if you call them up about a problem in VM mode they will simply tell you it is not support and you will have to pay another $200 to get any support.

Remember once someone sells you something they can not tell you how you can use it. That like you buying a car and in the purchase agreement they tell you your not allow to wreck the car. Grant it, they do not have to warranty it after you wreck it, but if you want to wreck it, that is up to you.

[zulgand04]

i was reading solmewhere the other day, don't rember where but it was sayin something along the lines of not being able to transfer a copy from one computer to another. example runing a copy of vista on a pc1, then get rid of that one takeing windows off it and wanting to run it on my new pc2 will not work. Due to the licences is resticted to the one computer you instal it on the first time. It was on digg the other day.

-Neal

[combatcolin]

UNLESS BILL SENDS THE BOYS ROUND THIS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE PIRATES.

(Me included)

Big impact on buisness applications though.

[hob]

oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...

...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...

[daveschroeder]

oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...

...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.

[Willis]

What a load of crap. People always make out Apple try and get your hard earned cash, but it seems nowadays its everyone else!

Microsoft are just going to cause more problems for themselves because prohibiting the use of the basic and home editions to be used, people will just get a cracked version, because thats what most people do.

Pointless!

[balamw]

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.
Dave,

I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)

The earlier thread on this topic is here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=243716

B

[Lord Blackadder]

The bottom line is that this is just one more EULA violation that people will ignore on a daily basis, unless MS implements some way of enforcing it.

[tny]

Did you read any of the thread so far?

You can use Vista Home standalone in a virtualization environment legally.

This is purely a misinterpretation of the EULA.

If they didn't understand this on /., they're not going to understand this here, either.

[iMeowbot]

This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.

The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.

This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.

[FoxyKaye]

...seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?
Can I get an Amen? This is just M$ trying to frack with Mac switchers who still want to use Windows on their Macs. I don't know anyone who as ever read any M$ EULA in any great detail - but, if they start an urban legend that it's "illegal" to use Windows on a Mac, then people won't read the EULA and just believe M$ will somehow find out they're emulating Vista on their MacBook and shut off the installation remotely. Look at how much gobbledygook M$ has already put out about Vista and "activation", piracy, and other "security" measures.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.

[daveschroeder]

Dave,

I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)

Coincidentally, I had just emailed Paul.

He already responded:

From: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Subject: RE: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:23:04 AM CDT
To: das [at] doit.wisc.edu

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

...to which I replied:

From: das [at] doit.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Row over Vista virtualization much ado about nothing?
Date: October 23, 2006 8:30:57 AM CDT
To: thurrott [at] gmail.com
Security: Signed

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...

Update: Paul's response:

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.

You can understand why this is an issue, given that the Business and Ultimate EULAs not only explicitly allow VM use, but also include additional licenses to use that copy a second time in a VM, legally (on the same device). Also, all the language, as I said, revolves around using "the software installed on the licensed device" (implying that it's an installation that already exists on a licensed device) in a VM.

So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)

Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.

[dmw007]

Well then...if this is the case, who needs XP or Vista? I may just install Windows RG on my macbook pro when I get it. And yes...we educated Windows RG users use only the best hardware. I'll be waiting for C2D too. :)

For me, it's either Mac OS Windows RG. :rolleyes:

For a preview of Windows RG: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

:D ;)


I don't see the difference between Windows XPee and Windows RG. :confused: ;) :D

[fresno30]

Why would they make such a stupid move? I can tell you this much, they have just lost my support as a vendor! How do they expect me to to sell a $300 copy of windows to a home user just so he can use Microsoft's O/S on his Mac? Oh well I'm sure they know what they are doing or do they?!?!?

:confused:

[a456]

The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.

At £154.99 for the basic edition on Amazon as a pre-order I wouldn't personally use the term bargain basement. Thank goodness I have no need for Windows.

On the upside it may give a boost to CrossOver Mac and mean even less money going to MS.

[Sun Baked]

Watch, it probably really means it instantly voids the MS support part of the Vista purchase for that license.

Would be just peachy that Apple offers zero support for running Vista on a Mac, and MS does the same for those doing it via virtualization.

Probably forsee a support headache coming down the path. :p

[savar]

Why would they make such a stupid move? I can tell you this much, they have just lost my support as a vendor! How do they expect me to to sell a $300 copy of windows to a home user just so he can use Microsoft's O/S on his Mac? Oh well I'm sure they know what they are doing or do they?!?!?

:confused:

So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?

[daveschroeder]

Watch, it probably really means it instantly voids the MS support part of the Vista purchase for that license.

Would be just peachy that Apple offers zero support for running Vista on a Mac, and MS does the same for those doing it via virtualization.

Probably forsee a support headache coming down the path. :p

That's what Paul Thurrott thought, too. (See his response above.)

In any event, Apple wouldn't support Windows running via any method on a Mac.

However, in the Boot Camp scenario, any support available from Microsoft with any version of Vista would still be available.

[shamino]

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:
One person mentioned wanting simultaneous BootCamp and Parallels installations.

It's also useful in a tech-support/QA environment. A lot of corporations have a standard software environment that all employees must use. Whenever this environment changes, the changes must be tested. It can be very convenient to create and test these new environments from within VMs. This way you can blow away mistakes and problem-installs by simply deleting a file, instead of having to reformat an entire hard drive.

If your company has to support multiple platforms (e.g. NT4, Win2K, XP, etc.), it can be a huge cost savings for your support staff to be able to simultaneously run all of the platforms via VMs on a single computer.

But both of these uses are the kinds of things that really should justify a business license. The real question here is if someone running the Business edition as the native OS can also run the Home edition in a VM - so QA staff can support users running the home edition without needing a separate computer dedicated for the purpose.

[PlaceofDis]

So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?

yes its true for running things like parallels, Boot Camp however is just fine with all editions of Vista, afaik

[meepm00pmeep]

just another way to put more $ into Microsoft's pockets... it's a good thing i refuse to install Windows on my MBP

[prostuff1]

Wow, this seems like a really stupid move!!

Someone correct me if i am wrong here but what this means is that if a mac user wants to install windows in bootcamp and parallels he is going to have to get the business or premium edition??

It is a good thing i get software (all windows, which sucks) through my school for free. I would never pay $400 just te be able to run it in a virtualized environment.

Also, i am assuming that if and when parallels figured out how to use the bootcamp partition to run windows in there software that would frack the EULA and therefor you would be SOL with help from microsoft. Now that puzzles me because technically there is only one copy of windows installed on the machine, but since it is being used via bootcamp and parallels it breaks the EULA and again you are out of luck.

Microsoft seems to be going about this totally backwards to me. I don't understand there insistence on so many different versions of the same crap. why not make like 3-4 versions instead of 7 (or whatever number it is). Make one for home users, one for businesses, and an ultimate edition. Then a server version. That to me seems so much easier.

Oh well, i get it for free anyway so i'm not sure why i am complaining.

[mozmac]

I've got a question for you guys. Any of you Mac users that also run Windows on a box somewhere:

Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?

[Swarmlord]

I think it's best if Vista is avoided altogether. The best way to avoid problems with Microsoft is not to give them any money and not to load any of their software on your computer.

At work here we just discovered that upgrading to Internet Exploder 7 causes two of our most important Internet based products to not work properly. They ever heard about backwards compatibility or testing at Microsoft? Just reinforces my reasoning for not sending Microsoft almost $300 to subject myself to their newest software fiasco. I think I'll do something more rewarding and pleasurable like jab a Bic pen into the palm of my hand.

[daveschroeder]

Someone correct me if i am wrong here but what this means is that if a mac user wants to install windows in bootcamp and parallels he is going to have to get the business or premium edition??

Boot Camp is not virtualization, by any definition. (And no, there's no way Microsoft or anyone else could argue that it is.)

[Swarmlord]

I've got a question for you guys. Any of you Mac users that also run Windows on a box somewhere:

Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?

I run Windows on several computers at home and use one at work. Supporting all types of computers is my line of work so I can't avoid it. I use my Mac to accomplish anything where I want reliable, predictable results though especially when it comes to video and graphics.

I NEVER upgrade any of my personal computers to the latest Windows products until several months have passed. I have to install the product at work primarily to evaluate when it's ready to deploy.

I used Windows 2000 until service pack 1 on XP came out and will probably do the same thing for Vista. Microsoft basically has to stop supporting a version of their OS before I feel compelled to upgrade though. It's only been about 6 months where the lack of updates on Windows 2000 has been a concern to me.

[freeny]

Let the pirating begin....

[prostuff1]

I think it's best if Vista is avoided altogether. The best way to avoid problems with Microsoft is not to give them any money and not to load any of their software on your computer.

At work here we just discovered that upgrading to Internet Exploder 7 causes two of our most important Internet based products to not work properly. They ever heard about backwards compatibility or testing at Microsoft? Just reinforces my reasoning for not sending Microsoft almost $300 to subject myself to their newest software fiasco. I think I'll do something more rewarding and pleasurable like jab a Bic pen into the palm of my hand.


I get why you are mad that IE 7 broke your product but I think one of microsofts biggest problems is that they have to continually think about the backwards compatability. If they don't there customers get mad but they are also mad when nothing new happens with the OS. I am not saying that there is nothing new in Vista but when they have to consider ALL the software and hardware they have to support from "legacy" system it can be overwhelming.

I think that if microsfot keeps up this trend of a new OS every 4 years (or whatever the time frame has been for Vista) they should make baselines and then tell everyone that software is going to have to be tweaked and changed for the next version of the OS.

Kinda like apple switching to intel. Apple told it customers and then helped the transition buy providing a tool to make universal binaries. For the most part i think Apple did a good job with the transition and everything went pretty smooth. Microsoft needs to take a similar approach with its next OS version.

But that is just my opinion.

[PlaceofDis]

I think it's best if Vista is avoided altogether. The best way to avoid problems with Microsoft is not to give them any money and not to load any of their software on your computer.

At work here we just discovered that upgrading to Internet Exploder 7 causes two of our most important Internet based products to not work properly. They ever heard about backwards compatibility or testing at Microsoft? Just reinforces my reasoning for not sending Microsoft almost $300 to subject myself to their newest software fiasco. I think I'll do something more rewarding and pleasurable like jab a Bic pen into the palm of my hand.

while it would be nice to live in a world where everything Microsoft made could easily be avoided, its certainly not the best solution at all for some people and their jobs/careers/etc. If you need compatibility with Windows, then you need it to get things done. XP will be fine for the vast majority of people right now, but eventually people are going to want to upgrade to Vista for a variety of reasons, and knowing that you'll have to re-boot to run vista for the lower-level versions is an issue. Microsoft isn't the best company, but we live in a world where their products are used by so many people that it can't be avoided.

[twilson]

Dave,

I understand where you are coming from, but I still don't interpret the EULA as you do. Neither does Paul Thurrott http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp. Can you please provide links to others who think like you, preferably if they happen to work for MS. ;)

The earlier thread on this topic is here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=243716
B

I agree with Dave on this one. It's saying you can't have the OS installed on VM as well as a standalone machine. It's no more restrictive than the XP licensing.

Only difference is the VM part is EXPLICIT, instead of IMPLIED.

You could only have XP installed on 1 machine at any time.

[balamw]

So I'll say that, if this is accurate, I stand corrected. After a few years of reading Microsoft (and other) EULAs, even I thought Microsoft wouldn't be that retarded. ;-)

Given the language, and given the additional-license situation with Business and Ultimate, I still have to say I'm surprised.
The more "interesting" restriction I saw (and mentioned in the other thread) was the "don't use DRM in a VM" restriction even with business or ultimate. :eek: :rolleyes:

B

[prostuff1]

Boot Camp is not virtualization, by any definition. (And no, there's no way Microsoft or anyone else could argue that it is.)

I know that Bootcamp is not virtualization. What i am saying is that to run the OS in Bootcamp and a copy in parallels (legally) you would need to by the business or premium edition (or whatever they are called).

[twilson]

The more "interesting" restriction I saw (and mentioned in the other thread) was the "don't use DRM in a VM" restriction even with business or ultimate. :eek: :rolleyes:

B


Of course not, the DRM would then be transferrable. Which given the lack of DRM license backups, I think that is what most people will do.

[ready2switch]

Does anyone know offhand how many licenses come with the business and/or ultimate editions?

[dextertangocci]

As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.

Exactly. No one give a ****.

[Snowy_River]

Setting aside the question of no VM at all, has it occurred to anyone that having a restriction on running in a VM even on the licensed machine could put a damper on the idea of having Parallels (or VMWare) be able to start up off of the BootCamp partition? As that's an ability that I've been wanting, that's something that bothers me about this....

[jettredmont]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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".


I am not a lawyer. However, direct reading of this does not indicate that. Once you install Windows on a machine, inside a VM or otherwise, the device on which it is installed is licensed.

IMHO, the angle Microsoft is going for here is that within a VM you can very easily defeat their Activation controls (activate to the VM, then clone the VM instance a hundred times and all copies are then running activated). It's all about reducing piracy, because MS is absolutely paranoid about piracy. They'd cut off their own left arm if they thought someone might use it to steal a copy of Windows.

[mdntcallr]

this is just microsofts way to stick it to the mac user who wants to use dual booting. not those who will use boot camp?

anyway you look at it, this is lame. Can't we just pay them and they accept our money? Now they will tell us it isn't enough, we have to pay more.

screw ms, people can't get a break FROM THESE LOSERS~!!

[mdntcallr]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.

WELL, if it will work.... maybe this is just some people worrying aloud ahead of time so MS doesnt pull any funny business.

my bet is MS will have windows packages for mac.

[clintob]

Why is anyone surprised about this? It goes without saying that MS will try to squeeze every dime they can out of Vista, and that includes making non-PC users pony up for the most expensive version. It's the way it's always been with MS... nickel and dime all the way. Just yet another checkmark in the "why I can't get away from MS fast enough" column.

Losers.

[bigjohn]

they're just trying to prevent you buying one copy of vista and spreading it to every system in your house, including virtual ones on existing systems.

that said, who reads the EULA anyway, i have better things to do with my time

[jettredmont]

just to clear up the confusion, is this a legal or technical restriction? Can you still do this with the basic edition technically, but illegally. Or are there technical restrictions being applied?

No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.

And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."

That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.

[Chrispy]

I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...

[ChrisA]

What Microsoft is trying to prevent is running a data center off one copy of Home Edition. You would do it by buying an 8-core computer then installing one copy of Home edition and then VMware and then running a dozon virtual machiones each with another copy of Home Edition installed. What Microsoft is saying now ios that in order to do this you need to buy the "Big Bucks Edition" of Vista.

[balamw]

No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
The implication from Paul Thurrott's comments via daveschroeder above is that it isn't a tecnological limitation, but I agree with you that it shouldn't be hard to detect VM or not. I would presume the first place they'd go is for the DRM and thus eliminate lots of what people would like to do by running Windows in a VM on a Mac.

B

[cait-sith]

Why is MS so bad for limiting how you can run their software? Apple won't let you install their OS on any machine that's not made by them. The "no virtualization" restriction seems pretty lax compared to that. Especially when you consider that MS is doing nothing to enforce it, and Apple has included hardware/software to block the use of their software on 'unauthorized' hardware.

[kingtj]

From a practical standpoint, I know exactly what you're saying. But it doesn't help fix the problem. In the past, MS has implemented restrictive policies that angered enough users that they were forced to back down on them.

EG. A while back, MS took a stance that it was illegal to use an imaged installation of Windows on your PC if you didn't own a "volume license" or separate retail box license for it. If your PC came bundled with a copy of Windows on it and you blew that away in favor of your pre-made disk imaged version, they tried to say you weren't properly licensed anymore if you didn't own that second license.

This caused so many corporations to suddenly be "illegal" on thousands of PCs that it created a firestorm of protest. After that, you never really heard about the issue again. MS even started addressing the "Ghost" imaging software specifically in their tech. notes.

People who just shrug and say "Who cares? I'll just break the EULA and do things my way." just encourage MS to keep on restricting things. If you aren't the "squeaky wheel", you don't get any "oil".


I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...

[Westside guy]

Doesn't affect me either way - I'm staying away from Vista for as long as I can. It took them what - 5 years? - to get XP to some reasonable semblance of semi-security. Even now it's no great shakes; it just means some South Korean kid can't pull another large-scale Blaster type of hack.

Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.

[joeboy_45101]

Oh well, all this says to me is that Vista is going to suck even more than I originally thought. :D

[Marx55]

Greedy M$!

Then it comes BG giving money to the sick. Pathetic!

Hint: use P2P and Internet to give NO money to M$. Give your money to TRUE blood-free charity instead.

[whatever]

well I would want to install Vista in bootcamp to play games... and the same one under parallels to be able to do simple tasks in windows without having to reboot OSX... :-) until parallels comes up with that 3d enabled version we'll have to install it twice ;-)
At that point you would be in violation. You would have two installations of Vista. That is no different than installing it on your work machine and then taking the software home and installing it on your home machine.

It's stealing and Microsoft is 100% right in protecting themselves.

[whatever]

oh great. so those mac users who are possibly interested in actually getting a legitimate version now have to pay a lot...

...kinda puts one of getting a legitimate version...
Come on, who really buys legal copies of Windows?

A few years ago I tried to buy a legal copy of Windows 2000 (the software I was loading required 2000 and would not work on XP). I started off at CompUSA and after a few more stores I ended up contacting Microsoft directly and they thought I was crazy. They were totality confused by my request to buy a legal copy of Windows. They referred me to the restore discs that came with a Dell we had. Well, that didn't really help much. And then they actually recommended that I borrow a copy from a friend.

And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.

[whatever]

Watch, it probably really means it instantly voids the MS support part of the Vista purchase for that license.

Would be just peachy that Apple offers zero support for running Vista on a Mac, and MS does the same for those doing it via virtualization.

Probably forsee a support headache coming down the path. :p
Why should Apple offer support for Vista on a Mac.

Anyone who is willing to run Vista on a Mac are ussually technical and smart enought to search different support forums for the answers that they need.

[savar]

And here I was trying to buy a legal copy of Windows from MS, granted it wasn't the latest version (however XP had just come out, so 2000 wasn't that old) and MS was telling me to pirate the software.

That's hilarious. I was reading the other day that in addition to fighting piracy overseas, MS also uses the threat of software audit in the states to sell more licenses. They kind of say, "hey, we could come in and do an audit, or you can sign this $300 million, 5 year contract with us." A local government agency is taking option #2.

I guess they don't care about American, residential piracy.

[Le Big Mac]

So this is true?? I suppose this isn't any different than Apple saying that you can't run Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware, is it?


That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.

[Eidorian]

Steve Gibson (http://grc.com/) (love him or hate him) reports that Vista's rewritten network stack, through the various betas, has been shown vulnerable to a number of the exploits that more mature stacks (e.g. BSD's stack, the one MS used to quietly use) have fixed over the past decade! It just seems ludicrous.And if someone wants to listen to it...

Security Now! 51: Vista's Virgin Stack (http://www.twit.tv/sn51)

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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".It still looks like they don't want you to install it on a VM if you have it already installed on your system. Still, that's up in the air and we just LOVE Microsoft.

[btree]

who reads the EULA anyway, i have better things to do with my time

Careful, this might happen to you:
http://www.hackles.org/cgi-bin/archives.pl?request=327

[ender78]

Remember once someone sells you something they can not tell you how you can use it. That like you buying a car and in the purchase agreement they tell you your not allow to wreck the car. Grant it, they do not have to warranty it after you wreck it, but if you want to wreck it, that is up to you.


I hate to break it to you but when you buy software you are agreeing to the software licensing agreement. You must adhere to that agreement or face the loss of the license.

Microsoft is really trying to double dip. I can't blame Microsoft for preventing people from running on multiple virtual machines [someone that has 20 Vista Virtual Machines running on a server should pay for 20 licenses]. Two licenses [one for native and one for Parallels] is not too much to ask.

[macshark]

If Microsoft makes it more difficult for Mac/Linux users to run virtual copies of Vista, maybe Vise will be developed faster than Wine...

[janstett]

If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?


I do it all the time with XP. For one, it is a simple, clean environment that, if corrupted, can be restored with the copy of a single file. Whenever I do any "questionable" web surfing, not only do I use Firefox, I do it inside a virtual machine so that there is no chance in hell any of my real machine can be touched.


For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

Again I'm doing the same exact thing with XP and my MacBook Pro. Parallels for most situations, BootCamp for when I need bare metal.

[princealfie]

Disgusting. I think that I'm going to get some sushi instead. No rules there...

[jellomizer]

If Vista can run soley in a virtuallized environment without breaking the EULA, but not be installed on a machine that also is using it in a virtualized way. How does this affect anyone-(Mac or PC)?

If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:

Very confused about how this affects anyone?

Well it is an issue on who you want incharge. For example If I am doing some web development I may want to virtualize Vista to insture the page renders correctly in IE 7. Then switch back to my Mac Enviroment. But there are other times say I want to play a windows game I would want Windows to have full control. So I want to run it nativly.

I think Microsoft wants to make sure you are not putting the same copy of windows on different virtual devices so you can have 10 Versions of windows from the same license. (ALthough it is on the same box)

[puckhead193]

wait... people actually read the license agreement ;)
I have a feeling apple will include some type of virtualization software that doesn't require windows at all... (just a gut feeling)

[gkhaldi]

I've got a question for you guys. Any of you Mac users that also run Windows on a box somewhere:

Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?

I refuse to spend another dime @ Micro$oft.

[mahonmeister]

What's that other program that lets you run windows without an actual copy? Maybe I'll use that. Wait, are they even supporting Vista or just XP?

[Swarmlord]

while it would be nice to live in a world where everything Microsoft made could easily be avoided, its certainly not the best solution at all for some people and their jobs/careers/etc. If you need compatibility with Windows, then you need it to get things done. XP will be fine for the vast majority of people right now, but eventually people are going to want to upgrade to Vista for a variety of reasons, and knowing that you'll have to re-boot to run vista for the lower-level versions is an issue. Microsoft isn't the best company, but we live in a world where their products are used by so many people that it can't be avoided.

I know that I can't entirely avoid Vista, but I won't load it on my Mac. I have to use and support it at work though and as far as home use goes, it will wait until MS requires it to get security updates.

As for the previous post concerning backwards compatibility, I don't think that it's too much for Microsoft to test their browser on existing web pages that contain industry standard html, dtml, java, flash, etc. If Mozilla, Firefox, etc. launched a new version that crashed on web pages containing more than a couple jpgs and a paragraph tag, they'd be flayed and MS would be screaming the loudest.

[kresh]

Boot Camp is not virtualization, by any definition. (And no, there's no way Microsoft or anyone else could argue that it is.)

What if Microsoft claims that the Mac firmware (which is software on a chip) is EFI and Apple is emulating BIOS and thus Windows is running in an emulated environment.

Don't underestimate the power of the Darkside!

edit: Unless with Vista the Mac can use the native EFI, uhm... Maybe the Darkside is not all that :)

[jbh001]

But to answer your question, even if there were a legal restriction, there is definitely not any technical restriction that would prevent it from being installed in a VM anywhere.

What about Vista Authorization/Activation/Validation (whatever it's called).

You know, its the internet/telephone grovelling-for-permission-to-use-the-software part that comes after you've paid the latest installment of the Bill Gates friendship dues ... uh, I mean: purchased the new product.

[gkhaldi]

No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.

And, yes, the detection of a VM is simple, given a handful of VM vendors: just look for the VM "hardware" signatures they use. On activation, if any matching hardware is found, pop up a dialog stating "This license of Windows is not applicable to a virtual machine, such as <Parallels or VMWare or Virtual PC>. Activation failed. Please see www.microsoft.com/suckyoudry to enhance your license to allow activation on this virtual machine."

That is precisely what Activation is for: detecting invalid hardware (usually, hardware on which this copy of Windows was not activated, but in thi case also VM hardware) and stopping full use of the product on it. We can't say for certain that they will do this until it happens or someone from MS breaks the code of silence regarding this issue. But they certainly have the means to do it.

If this is true, why did Microsoft used to sell me Virtual PC with a version of XP Pro? I could clone that instance of XP Pro also several times and run them in // (altough very slow since emulated):confused: :confused:

[gkhaldi]

That's what makes all the rancor about this so funny. Depending on the reading of this EULA provision, Apple's limits are still as, or more, restrictive than Microsoft's.

But at least they are clear. And, last time I checked OS X wasn't far of the 99$ mark for a 5 instance home license. Compare that with Micro$oft:p :p

[fblack]

The bottom line is that this is just one more EULA violation that people will ignore on a daily basis, unless MS implements some way of enforcing it.

Well, dont they already do to a certain extent? My mobo on my dell died and later so did my hardrive. I replaced both and reinstalled XP with my other software. I had to reactivate XP and it kept telling me that I had an invalid serial code even though the sticker was on the box. I had to call to get it reactivated with new code. Then a few days later I cant get any windows updates and once again I have to call microsoft to reactivate XP. Then after downloading a service pack update it told me I had to reactivate the code yet again, that my hardware had changed and i had 3 days to do so. 3 times I had to call before it would work otherwise no updates and threat of limited funtionability! And I'm the original owner for crying out loud!

This means that MS can check thru windows update to see if your copy of XP matches some manufacture's hardware configuration. What's to stop them from crippling the OS thru software update? As it says in the Vista EULA:

c. If, after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of
the software may be affected. For example, you may
· need to reactivate the software, or
· receive reminders to obtain a properly licensed copy of the software,
or you may not be able to
· use or continue to use some of the features of the software, or
· obtain certain updates or upgrades from Microsoft.

I dont mind them protecting themselves from piracy, but I do mind them creating one aggravation after another for me the end user.

[BRLawyer]

The word "same" never occurs in the text, which never contemplates multiple installs.

It says you can't use it in a virtual machine. End of story. End of discussion.

Vista's restrictions are just the basic evidence that MS is drowning. Such limitations seem to be an ongoing strategy to guard some revenues in an otherwise extremely bad environment/market scenario for the company.

Currently, MS has only 2 "cash cows":

1 - MS Office, under onslaught by free solutions such as OpenOffice, or web-based suites such as Google's.

2 - MS Windows, which suffers from rampant piracy in developed AND developing markets.

The rest is just a bunch of loss-making ventures, including the XBox and the Zune. Due to lousy management and lack of innovation, MS will be DEAD or just a niche player in less than 10 years.

[mahonmeister]

What's that other program that lets you run windows without an actual copy? Maybe I'll use that. Wait, are they even supporting Vista or just XP?

Oh I found it: CrossOver Mac. Not sure if it will support Vista though.

[yidakee]

The sordid truth of MS is that there are so many pain-in-the-butt issues that this following year they are seriously going to loose market to Apple and OSX.

To be bluntly honest, all my PCs up to my latest one (Asus CD) had their native Windows copies, all legit and all, all XP Pro (never home!!). I am a seriously devoted "system stability" person, heck, I run a partion only to TEST software before I put it on my real system.

It was only when I had to reinstall WinXP and wasn't able too + MS offered me no solution except buying a new licence (up yours!) - try as I might they couldn't solve it - I ran a pirate copy + original SP2 I had from a PC World or similar.

Never had a better system. I totally swear this is true.

I treat my laptop like a heavy-load desktop workhorse, on 24/7, audio editing, filesharing, etc... Never once needed to reboot (except software install), never once a software crashed (mind you, from same CD install !! Vst instruments and effects, Wolfenstein E.T., flight simulator) - I did go through the SAME system tweaking on fresh install... I cant explain it !!

So all in all, I wont be shy in saying that when I do leap over to Apple, I unfortunately will have to install WinXP (cos I have to sell my Asus) to be able to work, and it will be a pirate copy, and it will work because MS simply cannot control "them all", plus, they can't afford to loose 50% of Windows users right now, at this critical "MacMoment"

If, on the other hand, I felt confidence my money was well spent, if I felt nourished my OS provider and not treated like a crack addict... I wouldnt use pirated OS software!

[mmmcheese]

UNLESS BILL SENDS THE BOYS ROUND THIS ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE PIRATES.

(Me included)

Big impact on buisness applications though.

Buy him out boys!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54LcZbig8fY

[gri]

So, lets say you have Vista in Parallels - and a service or security update comes out. Could you still download it? I have a W2000 SP1 legally but it still doesn't let me update, giving me some error that our IT persons couldn't understand...:mad:

[scottlinux]

How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.

[balamw]

How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.
Same way iTunes can detect that you're trying to rip a CD from a virtual CD drive. (Even though this one is easily bypassed). There aren't that many VM packages and they all have a unique signature that can be detected which does not involve AI or even rocket science.

In the end though there is no point in discussing how they detect it, since it would appear that they don't plan use any technological means to stop you from doing what their EULA appears to say you can't do.

B

[BRLawyer]

How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.

It's not about that, it's about having a "legit" installation. Especially for commercial environments, this means that Vista will only run in legit terms if you buy the Premium versions...

[xVeinx]

How would an operating system KNOW it is being run in virtualization? It cannot determine the difference from a real computer. We are talking about Vista like it is an artificial intelligence of some kind.

I suppose that depends on how you define artifical intelligence... Anyway, to answer your point, Vista can determine if you are running the software in a virtual environment. Virtualization requires the OS to be embedded in further software, and that software has distinct signitures that can be pulled out by the OS. It might be possible to add patches to prevent Vista from seeing those signatures, but who knows.

On another front, if MS were wise, they would take some advice from Apple's iTunes and use a deactivation feature. This would prevent a huge stress on their phone support and tremendously add to user happiness. If there ever became an issue with Windows, or someone needed to upgrade, then they could go ahead and deactivate that copy of windows or deauthorize the account (through safe mode in the case of OS problems). Then, the software could be reinstalled without worry and reactivated.

[Inkling]

All this messiness is why when I go Intel, I'll be looking at running the one Windows application I need to run--FrameMaker--under WINE/Codeweavers. No Windows code is necessary and thus no problem with licenses, legalities or paying Microsoft up to $300.

And since WINE/Codeweavers isn't Windows, it merely lets Windows applications run under OS X, it isn't troubled by the 200,000 Windows viruses, trojans etc. lurking out there.

Don't forget, Windows on your Mac means Windows viruses on your Mac.

[AnyKey]

I don't see the difference between Windows XPee and Windows RG. :confused: ;) :D


hehe, exactly :cool:

[Westside guy]

And since WINE/Codeweavers isn't Windows, it merely lets Windows applications run under OS X, it isn't troubled by the 200,000 Windows viruses, trojans etc. lurking out there.

Well... actually there are some viruses and trojans that are able to operate within the Wine environment. :p

Of course as far as I know, so far it's always been a case of "Hmm... I wonder if I can get worm xxxxxx to run under Wine?" :D

[Inkling]

All this messiness is why when I go Intel, I'll be looking at running the one Windows application I need--FrameMaker--under WINE/Crossover. No Windows code is necessary and thus no problem with licenses, legalities or paying Microsoft up to $300.

And since WINE/Crossover isn't Windows, merely letting Windows applications run under OS X, it isn't troubled by the 200,000 Windows viruses, trojans etc. lurking out there.

Lawsuits for violating some badly written EULA aren't your worst nightmare. Windows on your Mac means Windows viruses on your Mac and that's your worst nightmare.

More on Wine/Crossover at Codeweavers:

http://www.codeweavers.com/

[Chupa Chupa]

This all seems much ado about nothing. Clearly it looks like M$ is showing us how greedy they can be but look at the facts:

From what I've seen of Vista editions, Starter, Home Basic, and Home Premium are pretty much crippled.

Vista Business is $199 for the upgrade. I'm betting the OEM version will be priced similarly. Only a fool would go buy the full retail version. The OEM works fine.

VirtualPC sold for about $ 250. Parallels + Vista Biz is going to be about the same price.

$199 seems a lot for an upgrade, but keep in mind that M$ doesn't do major upgrades very often. So it's not like Apple where we have to put out $125 every 18 months or so.

If you really don't want to spend $199 on Vista Biz then buy Home Basic for $99 and use Boot Camp. Since Boot Camp isn't a virtualization Win can't get on your backs about that.

Still remains to be seen how Win will know if you are using virtualization software. Certain expect to see hacks that will make Vista think it's running on a true PC.

[princealfie]

It's not about that, it's about having a "legit" installation. Especially for commercial environments, this means that Vista will only run in legit terms if you buy the Premium versions...

Yes, but need we be to bite into the secret M$ conspiracy then?

[Maccus Aurelius]

Can I get an Amen? This is just M$ trying to frack with Mac switchers who still want to use Windows on their Macs. I don't know anyone who as ever read any M$ EULA in any great detail - but, if they start an urban legend that it's "illegal" to use Windows on a Mac, then people won't read the EULA and just believe M$ will somehow find out they're emulating Vista on their MacBook and shut off the installation remotely. Look at how much gobbledygook M$ has already put out about Vista and "activation", piracy, and other "security" measures.

These aren't the droids you're looking for. You can go about your business. Move along, move along.


I presently use a copy of windows xp pro on my macbook, which actually came in a bundle pack from Dell for the computer in my office. I don't see how Vista will be any different, and if something went wrong with it on my computer, I'd hardly be distraught since OS X would be unharmed. What's Microsquat gonna do? Fry my Hard Drive? Since the vast majority of mac users will most likely be using Vista and Windoze of old as a second tier operating system, I and I'm sure many others fail to see the threat. But it's their product, and they ARE free to do what they wish with it, but I think that although this may be golden for MS on the business sector, I also agree with many here that anyone and everyone that makes,takes and remakes pirated Windows software will do so even faster, since no one likes to bloodlet their wallets.

[BRLawyer]

Yes, but need we be to bite into the secret M$ conspiracy then?

Can ya rephrase that? I didn't get it...

[Gosh]

I have a legit version of XP running in Parallels whilst I make the compete switch and then - why the hell would I but Vista anyway?

Ow yeah for the gadgets - of course - silly me!:rolleyes:

[balamw]

why the hell would I but Vista anyway?

You know things are bad when even the fanboys are making similar arguments...

Sticking with Windows XP in a Windows Vista World (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_xp_apps.asp)

B

[morespce54]

Remember once someone sells you something they can not tell you how you can use it. That like you buying a car and in the purchase agreement they tell you your not allow to wreck the car. Grant it, they do not have to warranty it after you wreck it, but if you want to wreck it, that is up to you.

Does it apply to purchased iTMS songs too? :rolleyes: :confused: ;)

[rdrr]

This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

I know we jump all over MS for spreading FUD... We shouldn't do the same.

[pale9]

ms ist collapsing under its own weight. my god, they cant even get a decent os together after how many years? so, the marketing goons in redmond think that if they manage to stem piracy, that could make up for the losses to osx and linux they are sure to incurr. because lets just face the facts: vista in all its incarnations is not even worth half of what the asking prices are.....

[clintob]

This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.

What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.

It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.

From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.

[kim0785b]

losers, i hate microsoft, stupid capitalists.

[balamw]

This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

I know we jump all over MS for spreading FUD... We shouldn't do the same.
Microsoft's "correction" is discussed further in the "update" on the article you linked:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=159

The bottom line is that Vista Home Basic/Premium are not licensed for use in a VM. Ulitmate and Business editions are OK.

B

[iJawn108]

****in' microsoft

im glad i have switched.

[countach]

Oh I found it: CrossOver Mac. Not sure if it will support Vista though.

Seeing as Crossover doesn't require MS-Windows, it doesn't "support" any version thereof. It emulates Windows APIs.

[countach]

What if Microsoft claims that the Mac firmware (which is software on a chip) is EFI and Apple is emulating BIOS and thus Windows is running in an emulated environment.

Don't underestimate the power of the Darkside!

edit: Unless with Vista the Mac can use the native EFI, uhm... Maybe the Darkside is not all that :)

EFI is not an emulation of bios.

[Nemesis]

This is great news!

So more and more people will finally realise that running Mac OS X only is far, far, far cheaper, more stabile and less troublesome.

Way to go Microsoft, we love you! Please make Business Edition three times more expensive too, make software registration five time more complicated and annoying as hell, include more ironcurtain restrictions, so people can buy more and more Macs.

[sachamun]

...

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:

Very confused about how this affects anyone?

Home/Office desktop and laptop

[lawrencewinkler]

Regardless if you believe that you can install Vista Home under VMWare or Parallels, the real legal problem is MS has put VMWare and Parallels under legal notice that they may not write their software to allow the operation of Vista Home under their products, else they will be sued for contributory infringement.

So, technical theory aside, if MS has the legal right to restrict such behavior, there will be no way VMWare or Parallels will produce such software, otherwise MS will sue them out of existence.

[darrens]

I first read all this stuff on The Register - sounds like I'll be sticking with XP, even on my PC.

The fact that you can only install Vista twice is enough to annoy me.

[jettredmont]

This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

I know we jump all over MS for spreading FUD... We shouldn't do the same.

Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period. See:


Update 18-Oct: Microsoft has issued yet another "clarification." They say you really can't legally run Vista home versions in a VM. I say their agreement is incomprehensible and their policy is stupid and short-sighted. Details here.


So ... FCT* then?



(* Fear, Certainty, and Truth, as opposed to Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt)

[Detlev_73]

OMG, ROTFL!!!

This is HILARIOUS! We should send this to all our so-called "friends" who use Windows.

Well then...if this is the case, who needs XP or Vista? I may just install Windows RG on my macbook pro when I get it. And yes...we educated Windows RG users use only the best hardware. I'll be waiting for C2D too. :)

For me, it's either Mac OS Windows RG. :rolleyes:

For a preview of Windows RG: http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/winrg.php

:D ;)

[jettredmont]

EFI is not an emulation of bios.

Correct. EFI and BIOS are different animals. MacBooks and Mac Pros don't include BIOS. Windows requires BIOS (unless Vista has changed back to supporting EFI). Boot Camp EMULATES BIOS on top of EFI.

That was the point. Might hit the "or otherwise emulated" parenthetical in the EULA. Someone will need to talk with a lawyer on that one.

BTW: What Microsoft SAYS about the EULA is pretty much meaningless. The only things that will be held up in court are, in rapidly-descending order of relevance:

1. The EULA
2. Official pronouncements declaring intent of EULA (which might go to prove willful deception; I suspect the EULA contains a clause that any external pronouncements can not change or limit the content of the agreement, blah blah blah).
3. WAY down from the last, well-documented statements from a management-level individual at the company promising that the reading of the EULA is incorrect.

So, if a straight reading of the EULA might be interpreted to mean it can not be run on a virtual machine or under emulation of any sort, then thats the truth, no matter how much the Borg doth protest.

[Rocketman]

If they didn't understand this on /., they're not going to understand this here, either.


Radical thought.

Someone with a multiple CPU license simply ask Microsoft for a WRITTEN interpretation of the license.

Rocketman

[SMM]

I've got a question for you guys. Any of you Mac users that also run Windows on a box somewhere:

Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?

nyet!

[jhu]

how is this any different than apple's end user-license agreement for mac os x? here is section 2A (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.pdf):


This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. This License does not allow the Apple Software to exist on more than one computer at a time, and you may not make the Apple Software available over a network where it could be used by multiple computer at the same time.

the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx) also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:

1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.

microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.

[Me1000]

What do you know M$ is trying to copy apples licensing agreement! lol

[SMM]

I know that Bootcamp is not virtualization. What i am saying is that to run the OS in Bootcamp and a copy in parallels (legally) you would need to by the business or premium edition (or whatever they are called).

I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.

I am not sure who is interpreting this EULA correctly and this thread sure does not need my uninformed opinion. But, if a single instance of a retail version of Vista cannot be installed anyway you like, that is a crock. With that being said, I have certainly not found a single 'scaled down' MS offering that was worth having, especially in a business environment.

It is part of my job responsibilities to evaluate and implement new technology. I am not even looking at Vista right now. Not that I like XP. MS is making my life very difficult.

[MacinDoc]

how is this any different than apple's end user-license agreement for mac os x? here is section 2A (http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx104.pdf):



the language implies that virtualization on the same machine using the same software is forbidden. on the other hand, windows xp's end-user licence agreement (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx) also has similar language disallowing multiple copies of the same software to be run on the same computer:



microsoft's vista license just makes the virtualization part explicit. so i don't know what the hubub is over vista's license since the mac os x and windows xp licenses say the same thing, but not explicitly.
Apple's license doesn't specify limitations of use in a virtualized environment.

I find section 1.1 of Microsoft's license agreement rather amusing...
The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
I guess that means you can't legally run XP on a Core Duo or Core2 Duo system...

[Westside guy]

I don't know about Parallels, but with VMware you should use your "real" Windows install (the one accessible from Boot Camp) as a virtual machine as well. It's a handy solution in general; plus I would think it only counts as a single install.

Or at least I've done that with Linux/Windows/Grub on a Dell, in any case. It's not for the faint of heart though. And (in case I get PM'ed) I'll just say right off that you're on your own figuring it out - you can really b0rk your disk if you're not careful, so I don't want to be responsible for someone else's disk getting hosed. :D

[pyramid6]

I don't care what anyone says, even "Microsoft". Until an amendment is apply to the licensee agreement, I'm going to use it the way it is stated. I'm not going to install the software in a virtual machine on the licensed device.

My guess is the licensee, either is correct as written, or they will release a new agreement when the actual product ships. If MS intends for thier software not to be installed in a VM, they will clarify in the license agreement.

[jhu]

I don't care what anyone says, even "Microsoft". Until an amendment is apply to the licensee agreement, I'm going to use it the way it is stated. I'm not going to install the software in a virtual machine on the licensed device.

My guess is the licensee, either is correct as written, or they will release a new agreement when the actual product ships. If MS intends for thier software not to be installed in a VM, they will clarify in the license agreement.

the way it's worded actually can take two meanings:

1) the software installed on the host system can't be used to install again as guest system on the virtual machine on the same host system.

2) installing the software on a virtual machine as a guest system implies installing on a host computer that is running the virtualization software. that makes the host computer the actual "licensed" device. however, because the software is running in a virtual machine on the licensed device, this is contradicted by the eula.

you could argue whether or not vista would be able to detect that it's running on a virtual machine. i'd rather argue about the validity of all of these eula's that we're supposed to abide by but don't.

[balamw]

I guess that means you can't legally run XP on a Core Duo or Core2 Duo system...
Even for XP Home multi-core processors are considered one processor. It's the number of chips that counts. All started when Intel started Hyperthreading P4 CPUs (i.e. presenting them as 2 CPUs).

B

[Choppaface]

you mean people PAY for windows? :confused: :confused:

[gnasher729]

I have no issues with having the software installed once, although Apple allowing certain products to be installed on a desktop AND a laptop is great. But, I do not steal software. I really like what Apple does with their 'Family Packs'. You can add ~ 25-30% to the price and install it on five machines. That is great marketing and very fair.

Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?

[gnasher729]

Ummmm ... The Oct 18 Update in that link says exactly what we've been saying here: you can't legally run Vista Home editions in a VM. Period.

I would be careful. Macintosh users are probably a bit unusual in that they want to run Vista in a virtual machine _only_, and not as the real operating system. Most PC users would want to run Vista _both_ as their operating system and on a virtual machine; that would be two copies, whereas Macintosh users only want to run one copy. (Of course, most Mac users actually want to run zero copies of Vista...) So anybody issuing any clarification might not have given the Macintosh situation any thought.

And it doesn't say anywhere that the "dedicated machine" couldn't be a virtual machine in the first place.

[jhu]

Since I don't have a "Family Pack": Could you have a look at the license and check whether it would allow installing on three Macs plus in a virtual machine on two of these Macs for a total of five copies?

here's the 5-pack eula (http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosxfamily.html):

ADDENDUM to Software License Agreement for Mac OS X

The first and second sentences of Section 2A of the Software License Agreement for Mac OS X are revised as follows:

A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on up to a maximum of five (5) Apple-labeled computers at a time as long as those computers are located in the same household and used by persons who occupy that same household. By "household" we mean a person or persons who share the same housing unit such as a home, apartment, mobile home or condominium, but shall also extend to student members who are primary residents of that household but residing at a separate on-campus location. This license does not extend to business or commercial users.

The remainder of this Section 2 and all other terms and conditions of this Agreement remain in full force and effect.

1 license for 1 copy of the software on one computer.

[CReimer]

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

On my MacBook, the BootCamp install is for software that needs direct access to the hardware and where performance under virtualization would suck. ;) I run Windows XP/Vista under Parallels to check out how the web pages that I create on the Mac side using MAMP. Seriously, who in their right mind would install IE7 on their Windows system before the first service pack comes out? :eek:

[sccaldwell]

If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?

For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?

More importantly, for Mac users, why would we *want* to run Vista at all? :D Oh, you *have* to for some reason? Sorry to hear that...very unfortunate. :p

Craig

[WildPalms]

This is incorrect.

Microsoft's Vista EULA says:

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device 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.

So, the higher end versions of Vista actually include more in terms of virtualization licensing than any other commercial OS.

In any case, all versions of Vista can be legally used standalone in a virtualized environment, such as Parallels or VMWare.

No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.

[jhu]

No, incorrect Dave. Its pretty evident. Business edition or better to run in a virtual environment regardless of the platform the VM is hosted on. End of discussion.

the wording is rather ambiguous. we know a priori that microsoft's intention is not to allow running home edition on a virtual machine. however, this is not evident in how the eula is worded. as i've mentioned before, it can be interpreted a few ways. on the other hand there's the provision for not allowing the software to run on "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware." where exactly does this stop? can it be run on an fpga? in some sense, all current x86 processors are emulating the instruction set. so would that leave the original pentium processor the only processor allowed by the eula? does running the software on a transmeta processor constitute "otherwise emulated hardware"? i'm wondering how and why legal departments like to come up with such ambiguous and unclear wording.

[technicolor]

Uh who cares?
Like thats gonna stop anyone....does anybody outside of the few goody goodies on this board read or abide by those EULAs?

And most ppl will pirate it anyways....

[fblack]

Uh who cares?

Lots of people obviously...:)

Like thats gonna stop anyone....does anybody outside of the few goody goodies on this board read or abide by those EULAs?

And most ppl will pirate it anyways....


But oh how could I have missed it, you reside in never never land! The place of pirates and children who never grow up!:D

[toughboy]

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version :D:D:D

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..

[technicolor]

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version :D:D:D

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..
:cool:

[jhu]

Ok its good to know this.. I'll download the Ultimate version of Vista then, not the Home Sweet Home version :D:D:D

F. U. Microsoft.. never gonna take any penny of mine again.. You suck and you always will..

that's why you'll "steal" from microsoft and buy from apple? nice ethics there. unless you were going to "steal" from apple too.

[balamw]

The Vista EULA has been modified, presumably to relax the restrictions on reinstalling Vista and upgrading hardware... No changes to the limitations on virtualization for Home Basic and Home Premuim.

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/02/news-revision-to-windows-vista-retail-licensing-terms.aspx

B