ie8 fix
madison

The Ed Bott Report

Ed Bott
Home / News & Blogs / The Ed Bott Report

No, there's no ban on virtual Vista

By | October 13, 2006, 7:02am PDT

Summary: Some analysts who’ve looked at Microsoft’s new Vista license think it bans the use of certain Vista versions in any virtual machine. They’re wrong. In fact, the new Vista license doesn’t take away any virtual rights and gives some Windows users rights they’ve never had before.

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.

There's a lot of confusion going around about the new Windows Vista licenses. I wrote about the two-machine limit earlier this week. Now I see Gregg Keizer at TechWeb and Robert McLaws of Windows Now arguing that the new license bans the use of Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium in virtual machines.

I believe their interpretation is wrong. In fact, I think Microsoft deserves credit for this change, which actually gives purchasers of Vista Ultimate a benefit they wouldn't have under any previous Windows license.

The Vista license marks the first time Microsoft has explicitly addressed the issue of virtual hardware in a consumer-oriented product, I believe. The current license for Windows XP makes no distinction between physical and virtual hardware. It says, "You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Product on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer")."

Under the current XP license, a virtual machine is a separate computer and needs a separate license, with a separate product key and product activation. The new terms in the license for Windows Vista Home Basic and Home Premium continue that policy and make it crystal clear:

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

The qualifier is crucial. Does the clause quoted above say you can't run any copy of Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a VM? No. It says you cannot reuse the copy installed on your physical computer within a virtual machine on the same computer. That's no different from the way XP works today. If you want to run a second copy of your Windows operating system in a VM, you need a separate license.

But Vista Ultimate is different. Under the Additional Terms section for that OS, the license reads:

You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device.

In other words, if you are running a licensed copy of Vista Ultimate, you can load another copy of that same OS, using the same product key, in a virtual machine on that same computer (the "licensed device"). This license gives Vista Ultimate users a right they wouldn't have with any previous version of Windows. (The Vista Enterprise license will reportedly be even more generous, giving users the right to run up to four virtual copies on the licensed machine. There's no indication of what virtualization rights will be included with Vista Business.)

In this case, at least, Microsoft deserves congratulations, not criticism, for addressing the issue of virtualization in a way that makes sense for its most tech-savvy customers.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “The Ed Bott Report”

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

46
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

Comment on Virtualized "Home Basic"
egbegb 19th Oct 2006
The issue is that Microsoft could make these questions moot with a clear statement. They haven't done that so people argue in public forums and Microsoft gauges the level of discontent. Strictly speaking, installing a store bought VISTA into a
vm results in VISTA being on a "licensed device" AND in a vm which to me, seems to be prohibited.

One question is how far a license can go. Could Microsoft demand that your refrigerator door remain open to us VISTA? Can they prohibit you from using it on a train but allow its use in cars and on airplanes? I don't understand the limits of allowed use in license matters. I don't understand the property rights in this situation.

egb
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Message has been deleted.
nightman45 Updated - 13th Oct 2006
0 Votes
+ -
Saving an ISO file
none none 13th Oct 2006
I read you won't be allowed to save and ISO file to your HDD in some of the Vista configurations. Can you elaborate on that? Will a user actually be denied access to the HDD if a file has a .iso extension?


happy
0 Votes
+ -
No, that is wrong
Qbt 13th Oct 2006
As some people have pointed out in other forums, this only applies to an ISO of the Vista CD itself. It won't block any other ISO. I don't know what the criteria will be in determining what is a Vista ISO and what is not, but if you carefully read the EULA then that is what it says.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
I can't find this in the license anywhere
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2006
I read this on Windows Now as well but can't figure out what Robert is referring to.
0 Votes
+ -
Credit To Microsoft
Harry Bardal 13th Oct 2006
This IS an improvement for Microsoft.

The result has served to elevate what has been a series of
negative issues to mitigate what has been a net loss. But once
again, Microsoft has been compared exclusively to Microsoft.

When Vista becomes available, running multiple copies of
Windows to avoid corruptions and bit rot will likely be seen as an
advantage as it has in the past. The cloning of the same OS
across multiple machines will pass for diversity as it has in the
past. Most importantly, the role of watchdog will not be
hampered by onerous costs.

A 5 seat license is available now for OSX Tiger. The cost is $199.
How does the Windows 4 cloned VM's stack up? What's the cost
of an Enterprise license?

These questions are not asked because they are (conveniently)
not on the agenda. The aganda, it would seem, is inviolate.
Conclusions within the purvue of a hoplessly flawed agenda are
not in question. The agenda itself is.

Just trying to keep everybody honest.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Changing the subject again
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2006
Harry, I've written about the costs of Windows licensing before. You can read the post for yourself here , as can anyone else. I even discuss the Apple Family Pack licenses. The cost of an Enterprise license varies currently according to your corporate contract; general pricing for volume licenses is not yet available.

I know you'll find this shocking, but I don't write 5,000 words in every post. I usually try to pick a single topic and stick to it.

And just to stay on topic, Harry, can you tell me, if I buy one of those Apple Family Packs, how many of those licenses can I use in a virtual machine? Oh, wait. I forgot. Apple doesn't allow OS X to be installed in a VM, does it?

If you want to keep everyone honest, it helps to start with yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
Not Really For Your Consumption
Harry Bardal 13th Oct 2006
Ed

You're probably realized by now, that just as easilly as you can
declare your blogs "not for my consumtion", I can declare my
posts "not for your consumption". We can arrive an another
mutually agreeable stalemate. Just as your blogs are for
discerning Windows users, my posts are for discerning readers
that are more open to having viable alternatives presented to
them. They are meant to act as an antidote to what I consider
biased and myopic coverage. If I've changed the subject, then
you've declared it your to subject to administer. Like I say, this is
about one sided agendas. As I see it the subject is the problem. I
leave it to readers to decide whether they are being served in the
larger sense.

$299 is the cost of XP Pro, which is comparable to OSX Tiger in
availability if not features. Tiger comes in at $129. Tiger's family
pack license at $299 is arguably a better deal than what
Microsoft is offering now or with Vista. Does it really matter if
the functionality is returned virtually or not? Wouldn't you rather
have a separate license than a limited "permission to clone"
What we are referring to here is the cost per copy/functionality
and it does seem to swing strongly in Apple's favor, certainly for
small busineses and homes. With most of capital in North
America being generated by smaller businesses, I see this as an
issue.

As someone who has declared himself sensitive to price, I would
have thought this info to be helpful, so sorry if it's inclusion on
these open boards, and the "change of subject" is in some way
offensive.
0 Votes
+ -
Whoops
Harry Bardal 13th Oct 2006
Ooops, that price for Apple's 5 seat family pack is $199 not $299.
Well that makes it even better doen't it!
0 Votes
+ -
You are so full of Sh*te
Fujikid2 16th Oct 2006
The point is that Ed wrote an article on a particular topic. People who are interested in this topic then come here to read and discuss the topic.

Discussions of other unrelated topics in the talkback are as unwelcome as discussions of the dinning habits of the common dung beatle larva.
0 Votes
+ -
Tell you what...
BFD 13th Oct 2006
I'm a discerning reader. Guess what? Shut up!!! I don't give a crap about Apple here, I read this blog because I'm curious what Ed has to say about Microsoft, not Apple. What's more, everything you've posted on here has had some major malfunction when it comes to facts. When I want to read about Apple I'll go MDN.
0 Votes
+ -
Harry Harry Harry. You miss the point my man.
Cayble 14th Oct 2006
You are quite literally comparing ?Apples? to Oranges. And while Apple makes a very nice computer and a mighty fine OS you have got to want it awful bad to lay out the cash in order to justify to yourself that Apples over bloated prices are worth the cost. And there is little doubt Apples costs are bloated, as I will explain in detail shortly. The problem is, the vast majority of the world could care less about the minor details and specifics of licensing systems when Apple is charging top dollar for hardware, which means your already getting soaked by Apple just to get into their game.

Recently a friend who was looking to set up a new computer system where he wanted a one system ?does all? told me he was strongly considering Apples latest 24? iMac system.

http://tinyurl.com/y3n3q8

I agreed that the 24? monitor was a marvel even at $2,249.00 for the system in question and if you can?t settle for less then an Apple it was not a terrible buy. But I did point out to him that if he was ready to settle for a 20? monitor he could blow the Apple system away for less money. A lot less money. Here are the stats on the 24? iMac system;

24-inch widescreen LCD
1920x1200 resolution
2.16GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor
4MB shared L2 cache
1GB memory (2x512MB SO-DIMM)
250GB Serial ATA hard drive
8x double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL, DVD?RW, CD-RW)
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT with 128MB GDDR3 memory
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0
Apple Remote
$2,249.00

I assured my friend that the system was really premium priced and showed him how he could set himself up with a Windows based system that was vastly superior for less cash. I priced out a significantly better system from a local major custom builder chain store I have used frequently in the past and came up with the following set up;

http://tinyurl.com/ss57s

-Cooler Master Centurion 5 Blue Tower PC Case w/ 380 Watt Power Supply $83.95
-Asus P5B-E Socket 775 Intel 965 Express + ICH8R Chipset Dual-Channel DDR2 533/667/800 Gigabit Lan Intel High Definition Audio Firewire e-SATA PCI-Express Graphics Slots 6xSATAII $179.99
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 2.13 GHz (1066MHz) 2MB L2 Cache $289.99
-Asus EN7300GT SILENT/HTD/256M nVidia GeForce 7300GT Chipset 256MB SLI Ready PCI-Express $113.00
-Corsair DDR2 PC2-5400 667MHz Value Select 1GB 240-pin Unbuffered DIMM $149.99
-Maxtor DiamondMax Plus10 320GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Buffer $113.00
-Samsung SH-S182D/BEBN Super-WriteMaster DVDRW 18X/18X $40.99
-Linksys WMP54GX400 Wireless-G PCI Adapter with SRX 400 $99.99
-Samsung SyncMaster 205BW Black Flat panel display TFT 20" 1680 x 1050 / 60 Hz 300 cd/m2 600:1 6 ms 0.258 mm DVI, VGA $339.99
-Logitech (970118) Z-2300 2.1 Speaker System - 200W RMS - THX-certified $119.99
-Microsoft Windows XP Professional $159.00
-Assembly and OS installation $15.00
-Equals $1704.88

While there are several things that nice about this system the real bonus standout for the friend in question was the Logitec Speaker system. As a 2.1 system it?s absolutely dynamite at the price and it?s loud enough to use at a small party. Read the Cnet review. Outstanding speaker system at the price.

Interestingly enough my buddy was ready to go a little more cash. As he really could care less about wireless capacity (for his purposes) he dumped the wireless card and he loved the Windows media Center demo, and as it was a little cheaper then the XP pro it was an easy sell for him. He did step up on the processor and the video card and the case/power supply, as well as the memory upgrade (killer choice for the bucks) He had originally thought he was going to get soaked for $2249.00 so when he seen the savings he actually went a little better over all from my original suggestion to the following setup;

-Thermaltake Soprano VB1000SWS Mid-Tower (Silver-White) w/ See-Through Side Panel $96.99
-Antec SmartPower 2.0 400 Watt ATX12V v2.0 PSU $64.99
-Asus P5B-E Socket 775 Intel 965 Express + ICH8R Chipset
Dual-Channel DDR2 533/667/800 Gigabit Lan Intel High Definition
Audio Firewire e-SATA PCI-Express Graphics Slots 6xSATAII $179.99
-Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4 GHz (1066MHz) 4MB L2 CacheSocket 775 Processor $399.99
-Asus EN7600GT Silent/2DHT/256M nVidia GeForce 7600GT(560MHz) 256MB GDDR3(1.4GHz) 128-Bit DVI-I HDTV-Out Passive Cooling Heatsink SilentCool 2 PCI Express Graphics Card $239.99
-OCZ Dual Channel Special Ops XTC 1024MB PC6400 DDR2 800MHz Memory (2 x 512MB) $205.99
-Maxtor DiamondMax Plus10 320GB SATA II 7200RPM 16MB Buffer $113.00
-Samsung SH-S182D/BEBN Super-WriteMaster DVDRW 18X/18X $40.99
-Sapphire Theatrix Theatre 550 Pro PC TV-Tuner w/ Remote $89.99
-Samsung SyncMaster 205BW Black Flat panel display
TFT 20" 1680 x 1050 / 60 Hz 300 cd/m2 600:1 6 ms 0.258 mm DVI, VGA $339.99
-Logitech (970118) Z-2300 2.1 Speaker System - 200W RMS - THX-certified $119.99
-Microsoft Windows XP Media Center 2005 $129.00
-Assembly and OS installation $15.00
Equals $2036.89

On every single level other then monitor size this system totally annihilates the 24? iMac at a price of $212 dollars less then the iMac. This means in order to justify the cost of the 24? iMac monitor you have to ditch all the superior hardware and cough up the additional $212. In fact the original setup I had suggested annihilates the 20? iMac for about $5.00 more then the iMac. And once again, if you do not need the wireless system for your desktop you can pitch out the $99 wireless system and if you can live with Windows Media you can cut another $30, or even better XP home cut it back to $99 for your operating system and save $60 off the original system. Without the wireless, and with XP home that?s a $160 savings and now you get an ?iMac 20? System Annihilator? for $155.00 less then the 20? iMac.

Vastly superior sound, a great built in remote controlled video capture card, a high performance 320GB HD, fast great quality ram, a 256mb video card, and it kicks the crap out of a similar Apple system and cost less. So, while all the licensing stuff will matter to some, the bottom line for most is; why am I paying all that case for inferior equipment?
0 Votes
+ -
Macs are NOT more expensive...
machelpdesk 14th Oct 2006
then a similarily configured PC. Even the major PC mags state
that. See here for more info - http://systemshootouts.org.

The reality here is that is you compare the prices of similarily
configured PCs of major manufacturers like Dell, Sony, HP, and
Gateway to Apple's Mac, the prices are within $10-$20.

However if you want a Do-It-Yourself project, yes, you can build
a less expensive PC. Of course it'll have no warranty or support
(when it breaks you'll have to fix it, yourself), no true resale
value, and the cost doesn't accurately reflect the cost of the time
it took you to acquire the knowlege of the system and its
components, gathering all those components, assembling the
components into a case, and configuring all those disparate
components into a working, secure PC.
0 Votes
+ -
But they are less not-as-expensive!
cs2052 14th Oct 2006
>>I priced out a significantly better system from a local major custom builder chain store

In what way does that suggest "a Do-It-Yourself project" ?

Maybe you should actually read (and comprehend) posts before you respond to them. And try to stay on topic, as well.
0 Votes
+ -
I guess you didnt read. APPLE IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
Cayble 14th Oct 2006
The components for the custom built were superior components; the store assembles and configures the chosen components for $15. A thorough testing of the system is done before release to the customer. No labor or time involved on the purchasers behalf. And because this is a large and well respected chain store they also supply a one year parts and labor warranty. Of course I included the price of a Windows OS so there is whatever standard Microsoft support is supplied to any purchaser of a Microsoft OS. All this is on the website I provided a link to, I?m not making it up.

It doesn?t matter who says what, other then what Apple says they will sell me a system for compared to the best deal I can get. APPLE IS MORE EXPENSIVE.
0 Votes
+ -
And this is of no importance to the typical user...
BitTwiddler 13th Oct 2006
More important is the draconian restriction on how many times you can upgrade your computer before having to buy another license.
0 Votes
+ -
There is no restriction on how many times ...
ShadeTree 16th Oct 2006
... you upgrade your system. The restriction is on how many times you can change systems and use the same OS.
0 Votes
+ -
sorry
jrkagan 13th Oct 2006
Hi Ed,

I read your comment on my blog; I regret the error. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
No problem, Josh
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2006
Did you delete the original post? I can't find it anymore...
0 Votes
+ -
no, it's just updated
jrkagan 13th Oct 2006
no, it's still there, but it's updated. it may have been down for a few minutes while i updated it.
0 Votes
+ -
I think NOT !
BeGoneFool 13th Oct 2006
As in I won't be using Vista in this lifetime or the next.
0 Votes
+ -
Note the DRM restrictions
tic swayback 13th Oct 2006
Courtesy of the good folks over at Macintouch comes this bit of info from the Vista EULAs:

http://www.macintouch.com/#tips.2006.10.13
Moreover, the licenses for Vista Business and Vista Ultimate allow use in a virtual machine but state that, if you do so, you're not allowed to use any content protected by DRM. It states:

"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. 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."
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps that clause is there
Michael Kelly 13th Oct 2006
because a virtual machine on one computer looks the same as a virtual machine on another, thus bypassing the hardware restriction software in the DRM. It makes me wonder if the DRM simply won't work in VMs, or if it does allow you (functionally, not legally) to copy the VM from one computer to another.
0 Votes
+ -
How will it work?
tic swayback 13th Oct 2006
That's a really good question. Will something in Vista know if it's a VM installation and disable the ability to play MS DRMed files? Or is it just a licensing term that everyone will completely ignore?
0 Votes
+ -
Thanks for the info!
NonZealot 13th Oct 2006
I'm curious though, how well do FairPlay protected files play on a virtual OSX environment? I'm assuming that virtual OSX images play them just fine because if OSX installed on a virtual Mac can't play FairPlay protected files, then virtual Vista is no worse than virtual OSX as far as DRM is concerned.

I'm curious though, how did you install OSX on a virtual machine? Has Apple released virtual TPM modules to allow OSX users the same type of freedom that Windows users have had for many, many, many years now?
0 Votes
+ -
Empty speculation
tic swayback 14th Oct 2006
Nice distraction ploy--MS does something bad for its users so you immediately attack Apple through some vague speculation. Come back with specifics next time, but remember, two wrongs don't make a right.

And MS here is wrong, just preventing Mac users from accessing any of the content MS is pimping--why should it be illegal for Mac users to run Windows in Parallels and access the Zune store, the Plays For Sure stores, etc? What is the point of this restriction?
0 Votes
+ -
Hehe, you crack me up!!
NonZealot 15th Oct 2006
you immediately attack Apple through some vague speculation

Vague? How was I vague? Does Apple let you run virtual OSX machines: yes or no? Is that clear enough?

remember, two wrongs don't make a right

No, I agree, but since Apple seems to be held up as the standard for business ethics, how can you fault MS for trying to behave in the same way as Apple? wink

why should it be illegal for Mac users to run Windows in Parallels and access the Zune store, the Plays For Sure stores, etc? What is the point of this restriction?

Ouch, ouch, ouch!! You did not just write that, did you? Let me ask why it should be illegal for Dell owners to install OSX and access iGarage? What is the point of this restriction? Yes, yes, 2 wrongs don't make a right, but I view this like you and Laff view the whole OS vulnerability issue: no OS is perfectly secure but you can look at the figures and say that OS A is more secure than OS B. In this particular case, both MS and Apple restrict user choices in their own ways, but Apple is way, way, way, way more restrictive than MS. What's that? Apple gives you the choice to run Windows on a Mac? No, Microsoft gives you the choice to run Windows on a Mac which is completely opposite to the way Apple works by restricting my choice to run OSX on my P4. I can only imagine the uproar if MS put a kill switch into Windows that prevented it from starting up if it detected Bootcamp, Parallels, or Apple's TPM. You can thank MS for Bootcamp and Parallels, not Apple. So while you are admiring Vista on your Mac, remember to look up and thank Bill for letting you use his wonderful OS on your machine. Then you can look north and feel sorry for me, missing out on great things like iLife because Steve doesn't care quite so much about me as Bill cares about you. Sniff. sad
0 Votes
+ -
I can explain why you cant put a copy of OSX on your PC.
Cayble 16th Oct 2006
(just guessing)

It?s easy. Why do you think a Mac cost so much? I?m sure those nice looking cases cost a bit so that?s bound to add to the price, but seriously, on a package per package deal Apple always comes out a little more costly. In some cases noticeably more costly. What do you think you?re paying for in that Apple system that cost more then the identical hardware in a PC box?

One big hint. OSX. People will tell you about upgrade disks and such and what they cost, but they only cost as little as they do because they only work on an Apple that the big bucks have already been paid for. You can?t just go pick up identical hardware anywhere and install an OSX operating system can you? It has to be Apple hardware purchased with money paid to Apple. And why won?t Apple sell OSX for general public consumption? Because in order to sell it to the general public who haven?t shelled out huge bucks to Apple already for their hardware, the price of OSX for general public consumption has to become ?naked? instead of buried in the price of the hardware. And who wants to bet that the price of a ?naked OSX? is not a pretty sight. Its likely to make Vista look attractive in comparison. After all, lets be honest here, the prettiest thing about Linux is its ?naked price?. And despite its shortcomings Linux has a lot of very happy users because of that ?naked price?.

How do you think Apple would make out if people found out that OSX cost a bundle and that?s why an Apple computer cost so much? I guess there would be still many who would say its still worth every penny, but it would finally put the debate in a proper place.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so
tic swayback 16th Oct 2006
The problem with your reasoning is that Apple maintains much higher margins on their hardware than anyone else in the market. It is indeed the hardware that you're being charged more for, not some secret cabal to hide the cost of OSX. If OSX were secretly insanely expensive, Apple's profits wouldn't be at the level they are, as the high hardware margins would be covering OSX debt, rather than just translating into pure profit.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow, quite a tizzy!
tic swayback 16th Oct 2006
My oh my, that was quite a response. You seem to have a lot on your mind and you seem to be projecting quite a lot of it towards me. Not sure where all of this anti-Apple angst came from, or why it's relevant at all in this article about Microsoft's restrictions.

---Vague? How was I vague? Does Apple let you run virtual OSX machines: yes or no? Is that clear enough?---

So what you're saying is that Apple has no restrictions on their DRM, unlike Microsoft? Thanks. As you know, Apple's DRM (FairPlay) works just fine on Windows, and as far as I know, works just fine on VM installed versions of Windows. So score 1 for Apple for being more user-friendly. But this is irrelevant--we're talking about Windows and I wish you could get over your OSX obsession.

---No, I agree, but since Apple seems to be held up as the standard for business ethics, how can you fault MS for trying to behave in the same way as Apple?---

Who said anything about Apple being the standard for business ethics? Are you so paranoid and have such an inferiority complex that you read this into everything? Apple can be great at times, they can be awful at times. Whatever, it's irrelevant here. The point is that MS is being awful. Why bring Apple into it? Should we bring in other irrelevant business as well?

---Let me ask why it should be illegal for Dell owners to install OSX and access iGarage?---

Because it's incompatible with their hardware.

---What is the point of this restriction?---

Because of Apple's business model. 1) they're a hardware company, and that's where their profits lie. If they allow commmodity hardware to run their OS, they either lose the majority of their sales or must lower their prices to match the razor thin margins of commodity hardware manufacturers. Given the plethora of such companies going out of business, it would be idiotic for them to make that move, and 2) Apple's general philosophy is to make a device that "just works". By controlling both the hardware and the software, the user experience can be smoother and more elegant, and you don't need to worry about being compatible with every possible hardware manufacturer on earth. This allows coding to be cleaner, and functionality to be better.

Now that I've explained that, please explain to me why I can't use PFS or Zune DRM in a virtually installed copy of Windows. Go ahead, and try not to change the subject this time. I've legally purchased Windows to run in a VM. I've legally purchased songs from PFS and Zune. Why can't I run them?
0 Votes
+ -
nickname does quit fit does it?
voska 16th Oct 2006
That's a lot of anti-Apple zeal being peddled by someone who goes with the nick NonZealot. Odd that.....
0 Votes
+ -
No big deal
voska 16th Oct 2006
I don't use Microsoft DRM content to begin with and it say they advise not to use others in this form.

The more I read about Vista the more I'm encouraged not to buy. I was all hyped up about getting for the past 3 years but now I'm thinking Linux is looking better every day. The licenses for Vista are making me think it's not worth the money.
0 Votes
+ -
Use in VM not assured - especially on a Mac
Dan__ 13th Oct 2006
>>>>You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. The qualifier is crucial. Does the clause quoted above say you can't run any copy of Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a VM? No. It says you cannot reuse the copy installed on your physical computer within a virtual machine on the same computer. That's no different from the way XP works today. If you want to run a second copy of your Windows operating system in a VM, you need a separate license.

I disagree - it simply doesn't say what you've said. It doesn't say anything regarding reusing, or using it multiple virtual machines. It says that it may not be used in a virtual environment. Period.

I don't see their definition of "device" which is pretty important to this discussion. I suspect that it implies to physical hardware. This snippet from above assumes that the software has already been installed on a device (hardware). However, this license does not give you permission to use it in a virtual environment.

Also, to me, this says it is not allowed to be run using Parallels VM on a Mac. Boot Camp - Ok. But not in an emulated environment.

-Dan
0 Votes
+ -
I also disagree with Ed
mosborne 13th Oct 2006
The license clearly states:

2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign that license to one device ( physical hardware system ). That device is the ?licensed device.? A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.


A licensed must be associated to a physical device even if you actually installed it into a virtual machine.


You can only run the software on the device licensed and you cannot run the software in a virtual machine on the device licensed. I can't see any way around this restriction.


It seems that Vista Home and virtual machines are a no go. Even for Vista Ultimate you can't run the virtual machine on anything but original licensed hardware.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sorry, but that doesn't make sense...
Ed Bott 13th Oct 2006
You write: "Even for Vista Ultimate you can't run the virtual machine on anything but original licensed hardware."

Read the license text for Ultimate again:

"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device."

You may use it within a virtual hardware system. Seems pretty clear to me.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes, I believe the ban is there
FamilyManFirst 13th Oct 2006
Sorry, Ed, but I disagree with your conclusion.

Consider an earlier part of the license:
2. INSTALLATION AND USE RIGHTS. Before you use the software under a license, you must assign
that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the ?licensed device.? A
hardware partition or blade is considered to be a separate device.

Combine that with the part of the license you're focusing on:
4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the
licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.

Even if you buy an extra copy of Windows Vista Home, Basic or Premium, you must, according to section 2, "assign" the license to some hardware. Once the licensed is assigned, according to the Additional Terms section 4, you may not use it within a virtual hardware system. If you want to pick legal nits, you could arguably install the software on the virtual hardware system, but once that was done, it would be "installed" on the "licensed device" and you would not be legally allowed to use it.
0 Votes
+ -
I Agree
Stoutner 13th Oct 2006
I agree with FamilyManFirst. As I read the
license agreement, only Ultimate can be installed
in a virtual machine. And my guess is that
Microsoft is going to be pretty serious about
enforcing this.
0 Votes
+ -
Who gives a ****!
nomorems 13th Oct 2006
I will never, ever purchase Microsoft Warez again! EOS!
0 Votes
+ -
So why the **** ...
Fujikid2 16th Oct 2006
.. are you bothering to read this thread?

Unless the point is to find an excuse to send out an anti MS flame it would seem to be a total waste of your time.

If that is the point then you must lead a very sad and lonely life if your idea of a useful way to fill your time is to troll the forums flaming MS.
0 Votes
+ -
No, there's no ban on virtual Vista
machelpdesk 14th Oct 2006
Say what you will, Vista RC2 runs fine on my MacBook Pro under
Parallel Desktop for Mac.
0 Votes
+ -
Say what you will
cs2052 14th Oct 2006
I don't think anyone said that it *wouldn't* run, just that it doesn't seem legal to do so.

Say what you will, I walked out of Best Buy with an LCD HDTV without paying for it, and it still seems to get a decent picture.

Try not to be so stupid.
0 Votes
+ -
Messed up logic, CS2052...
tysonledwards 15th Oct 2006
Woah man, you are using some pretty messed up logic there.

Playing legitimately licensed media purchased by an individual
and played on a computer through a software application is in
no way related to walking into a Best Buy and stealing a TV.

Think about it this way... Lets say I use Windows 2000 for my
computer because I like that it is stable, reliable and the user is
still in control (OK right?). Lets say I also have a Zune Media
Player that requires that I use XP or Vista to copy files to it (Still
Okay, right?). Lets say that to do so, rather than deal with the
hassle of Dual Booting, I use VMware to accomplish such a task
(Still on the legal side?). Now, lets say that I open the Zune Music
Store and buy some song that I just heard on the radio (Morally
good, right?). Lets say that I want to copy that legitimately
purchased piece of music to my legitimately purchsed portable
media player. (Now there is the snag...)

You see, according to the current licensing scheme, I would be
prohibited from doing so as you can not utilize MS DRM files in a
Virtual Machine.

Now, perhaps assume that instead of using 2000 I were using
OS X with Parallels and I just happen to dispise all things iPod.
0 Votes
+ -
You mean programs have pre-requisites?
NonZealot 15th Oct 2006
Who would have thunk it!!

Now, perhaps assume that instead of using 2000 I were using OS X with Parallels and I just happen to dispise all things iPod.

Then I would say you were as out of luck as I would be if I wanted to run iGarage. At least MS lets you use 99.999% of Windows functionality in a virtual machine running on a Mac. I will never be able to run a single OSX program on my computer because of Apple's choice limiting TPM module. It means that you have to make the same decision I have to: if I want iGarage bad enough, I have to buy a Mac. If you want Zune bad enough, you must install XP or Vista. Luckily for me, I have no use for iGarage and luckily for you, you made up the whole Zune example and have no intention of buying one whether or not Microsoft makes you promise, on your honour, not to use DRM in virtual Vista environments. Looks like we both win!
0 Votes
+ -
How about Vista in a Virtual machine running in Linux
voska 16th Oct 2006
We currently do that with Windows 2000, can that be done under this license?
0 Votes
+ -
Should be No Problem
Fujikid2 16th Oct 2006
What's being referred to is that for the basic edtitions of Vista you can't run the same license on the host and the virtual system. That is effectively running two machines off one license. You should have a second license for the virtual machine.

With Ultimate you can do this without paying for a separate license as long as you're running the virtually machine on the host machine that the original licensed copy of Vista is installed on. If you move the Virtual machine to a different PC then you will need a sepatate license.

You're talking about running a single virtual copy on top of another OS. So effectively you only have one Windows machine running. You will of course need a separate license for each copy of the virtual machine that you run. i.e. you can't run multiple copies of the same virtual machine based on a single license.

But that's no different to any version of Windows. If you are running multiple copies of the Windows 2000 Virtual machines on more than one Linux Host and you have only paid for a single license then you are already breaking the license agreement.
0 Votes
+ -
Comment on Virtualized "Home Basic"
egbegb 19th Oct 2006
The issue is that Microsoft could make these questions moot with a clear statement. They haven't done that so people argue in public forums and Microsoft gauges the level of discontent. Strictly speaking, installing a store bought VISTA into a
vm results in VISTA being on a "licensed device" AND in a vm which to me, seems to be prohibited.

One question is how far a license can go. Could Microsoft demand that your refrigerator door remain open to us VISTA? Can they prohibit you from using it on a train but allow its use in cars and on airplanes? I don't understand the limits of allowed use in license matters. I don't understand the property rights in this situation.

egb
0 Votes
+ -
I disagree, but there are different kinds of virtualization
error@... 18th Oct 2006
At least for the standard kind of virtualization provided by VMWare or MS/Virtual PC. The language of "virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device" in the license clearly applies to this kind of virtualization.

But what about in cases like xen hypervisor with virtualization extentions in the CPU, where the host OS and guest OS's do not really run on an emulated hardware system but can share the actual physical hardware?

MS has agreed to make xen's hypervisor virtualization work with certain future versions of windows: http://www.xensource.com/news/pr071706.html. But since this hypervisor technology is at an early stage of development, at least with respect to MS products, MS probably decided it is not yet necessary to have language in the license that clearly refers to it.

It is sufficient to have language in the license that clearly covers the current standard virtualization solutions for MS products. And it seems crazy to interpret the license in any other way than to say it forbids running Vista Home Basic/Premium in emulated hardware that is provided by solutions such as VMWare or MS Virtual PC.

Does it also forbid Windows Vista to run side by side with Linux or another validly licensed Windows OS under the control of xen on the licensed device that is equipped with xen and the necessary hardware virtualization extensions? That is not so clear.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix