Vista EULA Restricts Virtualization Use

[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?

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]

Not so fast...

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)

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[50548]

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]

updates

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...

 

[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

 

[50548]

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]

WINE/Codeweavers Instead

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.

hehe, exactly

 

[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.

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?"

 

[Inkling]

WINE/Codeweavers Instead

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?