Boot Camp AND Parallels
Locked
Apple recently released their Intel based computers. Initially it would only run Apple's OS X.
Even more recently they released a beta of what they are calling "Boot Camp" which establishes a partition on the disk and also creates a CD for folks which contain drivers for some of the devices on the machine (say a Macbook Pro). From there, one installs Windows XP onto said partition, and then Macbook specific drivers created in the previous step, and then you can then dual boot, either boot into XP or boot into OS X.
Even more recently still, a company, Parallels (see http://www.parallels.com ), released a virtual machine solution. In this solutions, one can install XP (and other MS and non-MS OSs) as virtual machines. As the Macbooks et al are dual core, virtual machines get good performance, etc. and the effective long story short is that they (OS X, XP, etc) run in seperate windows on the same machine at the same time.
Folks can install and active XP for use in a native XP machine situation once Boot Camp'd. And folks can also install and activate XP as a virtual machine running along side OS X.
The problem is that if one wants to do both. Boot into XP natively in some cases, and at other times run as a virtual machine. Note that currently the Parallels solution won't pick up the XP installation that boots natively hence it must currently be installed a second time. The assumption is that eventually that won't be the case and native booting or virtual machine will both be able to pick up from the same copy.
Anyway, currently the issue is that once the XP is activated, say in the Boot Camp'd partitition, that the user is being requested to reactive under Parallel virtual machine. I understand the reason is because Parallels makes it appear to be on a different machine even though it is all on the same physical machine.
I understand that folks have explained this on the MS activation number and been provided new numbers etc to activated. It is not clear to me though whether the MS person is just accepting that it is ok because it is on the same machine, or whether MS is allowing this additional installation. Mind you I think MS should allow it, and from what I can see it is allowed. However, I've read through hundreds of posts on different forums now and nobody seems to know for certain. So I would be good to get some official word that it is ok and that there is no violation of any licensing.
Feel free to post any questions since some of the above may not be clear. I would assume though that at this point somebody at MS is familiar with this situation since it's the talk of at least one part of town at the moment. Thanks.
Answers
- The Windows XP end user licensing agreement is quite clear. You can only install Windows XP one (1) time on one (1) computer using the Product Key. Any additional installations, whether using "Boot Camp", a Virtual Machine software application, or installing on another drive or partiton, requires a new Product Key for each installation.
ccparallels,
This document may help: http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/f/f/2ff38f3e-033d-47e6-948b-8a7634590be6/virtual_machine.doc
The way I read it, unless you are in a special Volume Licensing situation, each instance of XP running somewhere somehow has to have its own distinct license, which is physically represented by a product key and a COA.
All Replies
- The Windows XP end user licensing agreement is quite clear. You can only install Windows XP one (1) time on one (1) computer using the Product Key. Any additional installations, whether using "Boot Camp", a Virtual Machine software application, or installing on another drive or partiton, requires a new Product Key for each installation.
- So you are saying that the license normally allows additional installations on the same machine? And that they can all be ok with the only requirement that new Product Key be freely gotten for each, and then they can all co-exist on the same machine (in this case they won't be run simultaneously if it matters any)?
Q. "So you are saying that the license normally allows additional installations on the same machine?".
A. No. You'll need to purchase a new Windows XP license (Product Key) for each additional installation of Windows XP.
Interesting. Part of the basis of my query is that folks are calling up, describing the situation, and being told it is fine, and then provided a new key. It's my understand that at least some of these people are not distorting the description in any way and still being told it's fine and provided an additional key to go on their merry way with both installations. It seems to me that community believes this is a non-issue (because it is believed to be allowed) therefore I think it would be nice to have an MS representative respond to this thread.
It will still be nice to get a response from a Microsoft representative.
Also, it's somewhat distorted that somebody can mark the thread as answered when they are not the OP.
Compose a letter and mail your inquiry to:
Microsoft Corporate and Legal Affairs
Microsoft Corporation
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052-6399 USA
I'm not familiar with the parallels program, can you clarify your question?
In response to bootcamp - yes we do support Apple computers running boot-camp for either Vista or XP (both of which, run very nicely on Apple machines!).
The legal usage of software on specific machine depends on the type of license (COA/System Builder, OEM, Retail, Volume) and all have different EULA's associated with usage - so its kind of a tricky question.
-phil
I'm not sure it is correct to call Parallels a "program" in a pure computer sense of the word. What is does is allows a virtual machine to run on the same computer. On some other platforms, it's my understanding that VMWare does the same thing. Also, and I believe this is different but Microsoft's own Virtual PC program for some platforms offers an alternate solutions. However, it's my understanding that Virtual PC provides platform _emulation_ and is not a virtual machine. So for instance, Virtual PC for the Apple Mac PowerPC allowed Windows to run on the PowerPC "under" Virtual PC even though Windows and the programs running under Window are "Intel programs".
In the case of the MBP (Apple MacBook Pro), it is not a PowerPC under the hood, but an Intel processor. Apple has gotten OS X to run on the Intel then in native mode. Because the chip being used on the MBP has a duo-core, and some other features, it means multiple operating systems can literally be running -- natively not as an emulation -- at the same time. That means you boot up the MBP with OS X. Then you load Parallels to bring up a virtual machine. It could be a Solaris virtual machine, or a LINUX version machine, all which can otherwise natively run on the Intel normally. In this case I'm asking about, you load a virtual machine that runs XP. Once done, OS X and XP and running at the same time because they are both Intel OS's at that point.
I can then shut down the Parallel's virtual machine, and shut down OS X and reboot the machine so that it only boots up under XP, and XP that has been "Boot Camp'd". Parallel's does not sell virtual machines where OS X can load along side once XP is running.
Boot Camp sets up a C: drive somehow. Parallel's sets up a different (at least currently) disk image space to install XP into. That means currently, if one want to install XP ala Boot Camp and also through Parallel's then two distinct installations must take place. The reason one would do this is because Parallels has limitations, for instance, does not currently support DirectX as I understand it, hence, some games, etc, cannot currently run on Parallel's, and of course there is some memory and performance issues to consider when running virtual machines.
That means, currently, many people will want to install XP through the Boot Camp process, and as a Parallel's virtual machine. Let's assume for now that the XP is either OEM or retail. What's happening is folks are installing XP through Boot Camp. And activating that installation. Now, when XP is installed again for use with the Parallels virtual machine is will run under, this gives the appearance that it is running under a seperate physical machine, even though it is not. Therefore, the one under Parallels says that XP has already been activated. Folks are then calling you guys up, explaining the situation, and being given new activation numbers. What I'm trying to ask is whether this is a mistake on the MS clerks parts, or, whether, MS is indeed letting us do the dual installation. I hope the latter since it will be a pain to have to purchase a second license for the same machine and IMO this can go from a win-win (no pun intended heh) to loose-loose situation. It just seems to me that this has passed by somebody in the know's desk by now and so should have a clear policy at this point. Thanks.
The short answer is no.
Parallels runs as a virtual machine, bootcamp runs as the actual booted OS (physical hardware). Both generate DIFFERENT hardware ID's because parallels is identified as a virtual machine (thus generating a special hardwareID different than booting from bootcamp).
They will be identified as two different copies of WIndows on two "different" machines. It will not be allowed to activate properly as it is not within the EULA terms of use.
-phil
Ok, I don't like that answer for now but thanks for the info.
I have a follow up question as well: I assume that at some point that either Apple and/or Parallels will end up allowing each other to use the same partition/disk info image for booting. If/When so, that would mean only one installation I would imagine with some sort of different profile info behind each or at least one of them.
However, since they do appear as different machines, that would still mean two different logical machines. And hence would still not be allowed to be (RE right?)activated properly it would seem (again the intent it to keep booting up both ways, not to permanently change from one way to the other)?
So what exactly is the policy where an XP Pro Retail machine runs a virtual machine using the same copy of XP Pro Retail for experimentation purposes? Is it necessary to purchase two seperate licences for what is essentially the same machine?
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
- Actually, let's work from the simplest case too: Installing the same XP into two partitions of the same drive of the same computer. Is that ok? And does it even matter if you boot off of either?
Q. "Installing the same XP into two partitions of the same drive of the same computer. Is that ok?"
A. Only if you purchase a new Product Key for the second installation.
ccparallels,
This document may help: http://download.microsoft.com/download/2/f/f/2ff38f3e-033d-47e6-948b-8a7634590be6/virtual_machine.doc
The way I read it, unless you are in a special Volume Licensing situation, each instance of XP running somewhere somehow has to have its own distinct license, which is physically represented by a product key and a COA.
That document seems to pertain to Volume Licencing only. Where is the EULA or similar legally binding documentation to the above regarding Retail versions and VMs?
You see, if the EULA of the retail product is rigidly adhered to, then certain limitations and terms therein make the operating system and certain of it's contained programs virtually (No pun intended) unuseable in anything but very limited environments.
Should the European Union now be asked to also consider the terms of the EULAs provided with Microsoft software as restrictive practices?
- I may be inclined to read it that way too, however, I don't see how that document [should] ever comes into play with an OEM license or retail license?
- My situation is very similar. The only difference is, I installed and deleted windows using Boot Camp. After I installed windows again using Parallels, windows tells me my product key is currently being used.
Is there a way I can transfer my key from my now non-existant instance of windows to the one I am using with Parallels? I literally used the first instance of windows for about an hour.
I hope I do not get punished for verifying my copy of windows before the 30 day limit. My understanding is that if your license was an OEM license, you are not supposed to be allowed to transfer it as such. However, it is also my understanding that MS is letting people do this by calling up for reactivation. This is a mixed signal and poor license management at best.
My understanding is also that if your license was not an OEM license, you should be allowed to transfer it by calling up for reactivation.
It is my understanding that Vista licensing gets more reasonable, but not by much, and I don't know how it will help folks with the MBP. This situation is just annoying to people with a MBP and not helping MS at all.
- How about this situation:
1) I have installed Windows XP Pro on my laptop
2) I have setup 2 hardware profiles, called 'Hardware' and 'Virtual'.
3) I run Windows natively on the laptop using the 'Hardware' profile.
4) In Linux, I have setup a VmWare virtual machine to boot the SAME installation using the 'Virtual' profile.
As you can see, only one installation was performed, and I am running Windows on a single machine. However, each time I switch between the 'Hardware' and 'Virtual' hardware profiles, Windows asks me to activate again.
Do you think my usage of Windows is compliant with the EULA?
PS: I am posting in this thread because it seems the most appropriate from my search in the forums. - Replace "Linux" with "MacOS X" and "VmWare" with "Parallels Desktop latest beta" and you get my situation... I have a Windows XP Pro licence, which i did'nt use anymore since i sold my PC a few months ago.
Yesterday i decided to install XP on my Mac, so i can use some USB devices i need for my DIY electronic things. I installed XP using Boot Camp, spent 2 hours fixing all those silly default values in Windows, no problem.
Then i rebooted into MacOS, started Parallels' latest beta version (that's great software, i'm prout to give them $€£), and created a Virtual Machine. I set its HDD to be the Windows partition created just above. Parallels created a hardware profile in Windows, so that the virtual and real peripherals are OK in both use cases. The virtual machine runs fine, I install the virtual drivers (Parallels additions) under the virtual hardware profile, that's OK.
The situation is quite clear: i have a computer, with one hard disk inside it, and one Windows partition/installation in it, with one legal licence number.
Now, everytime i switch between "virtualized" or "not virtualized" situation, Windows tells me i have 3 days to reactivate my copy. Why?!? Why did MicroSoft made a "hardware profile" feature, if i can't have two hardware profiles? What can i do?
I hope MS will have a decent answer to that - since we are many people in this situation. Otherwise - may i say "once again"? - the honest customers will be fooled because of so-called anti-piracy measures. Arthhhur,
The license for XP that you have now, is that an OEM license or a retail license, and further if retal, is it an upgrade license or a full license?
Did the computer that is now sold have a Certificate of Authenticity on it for the XP that you have now?
- It's neither OEM nor upgrade, and it wasn't sold with my ex-PC: It's a full license given by my school's MSDNAA agreement.
Arthhhur,
Your best source for info about what you can and cannot do with the MSDNAA academic license is the person/office in charge of such at the school.
- The point is that it has nothing to do with any specific MSDNAA license term. This is a Windows activation problem, that's all.
It seems that Windows XP's license was written before the virtualization era, therefore ignoring this use case: one windows on one computer, but two hardware profiles for either virtual or native operation.
I can't believe it would be forbidden, since there is a single user using a single machine - all the explanations i've seen saying that it *is* forbidden and why was pure nonsense.
By the way, i still don't get the reason why MS allows different hardware profiles if you need to reactivate everytime you switch... - I was running XP Pro SP2 (Retail) under Parallels and decided to give the whole Boot Camp and Parallels combined thing a try (so I could play some games)
Deleted the Parallels XP, Installed fresh into Boot Camp and had to go through the 30 minute phone call to get it properly activated and validated.
I then booted back into OS X and opened it under Parallels so that I could get some work done while all the updates were happening. As soon as it booted under Parallels it said I had 3 days to activate, not validated, blah blah blah.
So, I shut down Parallels, rebooted into XP and now that said I had 3 days to activate.
Screw it, I don't need to play MS only games that badly - so I wiped the partition and am reinstalling in Parallels (which is fine for getting work done) and will go through the painful phone call again - and it seems I will have to do the same for Office as well.
This really needs to be addressed by MS quickly as multi-core processors make virtualization a common use - in my opinion booting a VM using a physical disk partition on which the os is licensed is not a violation of the license - but that is my opinion and IANAL. Hi Sjan,
The purpose of this forum is the support of Windows Genuine Advantage. Your issue appears to be Product Activation related and as such, is offtopic and outside my area of knowledge. You may have better results by posting your question in the XP forum http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/newsgroups/reader.mspx
Thank you,
Darin Smith
WGA Forum Program Manager
--------------------------------------------------------
All Users: Please go to http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=1255325&SiteID=25 before posting a question.--------------------------------------------------------
