Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

[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.

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

I don't see the difference between Windows XPee and Windows RG.

 

[fresno30]

Go Microsoft!

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?!?!?

 

[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.

 

[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?!?!?

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.

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?

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]

I'm with Dave!

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: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/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.

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.

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....