Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

daveschroeder said:
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".
Click to expand...

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.
 
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~!!
 
daveschroeder said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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
 
Pragmatic67 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
This is to prevent use of Home Edition in a data center

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.
 
jettredmont said:
No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
re: could care less attitudes

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".


Chrispy said:
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...
Click to expand...
 
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 (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.
 
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.
 
SiCbe said:
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 ;-)
Click to expand...
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.
 
hob said:
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...
Click to expand...
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.
 
Sun Baked said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
whatever said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
savar said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.
 
Westside guy said:
Steve Gibson (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.
Click to expand...
And if someone wants to listen to it...

Security Now! 51: Vista's Virgin Stack

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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
Maestro64 said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Maybe this is a good thing...

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

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.

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

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back