Vista EULA forbids virtualization
TUAW reader Rae pointed us to this post on the Parallels Virtualization blog, which confirms details of the end user license agreement that came to light last Autumn. Microsoft's EULA specifically forbids using Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium with virtualization technologies.
This means that if you want to run Vista on Parallels, and want to keep within the terms of the EULA, you'll need to buy either the Business or Ultimate versions, whose EULAs allow for virtualized use. After public outcry, Microsoft did change the EULA at least once before to allow users to deinstall their version from one computer and reinstall it on another. Hopefully, a similar grass roots movement will encourage Microsoft to rethink their stance on virtualization for their lower-end Vista releases.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Daniel D said 11:18PM on 2-01-2007
if its possible to do without it, im sure a little thing like that agreement wont stop people using Vista with parallels
Reply
superpixel said 11:37PM on 2-01-2007
it just astounds me. the nickel-and-diming MS seems to think will play so well with America. sad thing is, they're probably right.
if you read "The Road Ahead" by Gates, at one point he's discussing paying for music online. every scenario is a nickel-and-dime operation-- maybe you pay every time you play. maybe you rent per month, etc. he NEVER discusses the iTunes concept: 1 price, you kinda "own" it. NEVER. it either didn't occur to him or his editors, or he just didn't want to consider it as an option.
"How many services would you like to upgrade to today?" or "The Wow starts as soon as we verify your credit card for this $.34 upgrade that allows Solitaire to use all 52 cards."
Reply
Derek said 12:36AM on 2-02-2007
This is why I just bought XP for a fraction of the price and forgo any awful Vista problems.
Reply
liam said 2:17AM on 2-02-2007
well, Mac osX's eula says you can't run it on anything but apple hardware, so shouldn't that stop parallls and vmware from allowing OS X on their virtualizations programs?
Reply
Simon Arch said 2:26AM on 2-02-2007
This is just MS's reaction to Parallels, and is about as unenforceable as can be. After all, how will they know a particular copy of Vista is running in a VM? Besides, I've never heard of someone having a license revoked for "violating" a EULA.
Reply
hs said 2:55AM on 2-02-2007
This debate was all over the Internet right before Christmas.
The EULA for Vista Business and Ultimate, allows for running Vista on your physical hardware AND in a virtual machine.
For the lower versions of Vista; if you run them in a VM, you've spent your license.
Reply
Aral Balkan said 5:05AM on 2-02-2007
I don't like what Microsoft are doing by restricting Vista in this way but isn't it somewhat hypocritical to criticize Windows in this regard without even mentioning that Apple completely forbids the use of OS X with virtualization under any circumstances whatsoever?
Reply
setmajer said 9:02AM on 2-02-2007
Aral:
Does Apples EULA forbid virtualization, or does it just require you to run OS X on Apple hardware? If the latter, then running OS X within Parallels (or similar) on an Apple machine ought to be OK.
Reply
Karl Childers said 9:23AM on 2-02-2007
I think hs is right. The Eula says you can't run it in a VM AND on a stand-alone system for those editions. The others allow both.
Reply
Johnny Thrash said 10:09AM on 2-02-2007
Microsoft can kiss my %@#! I'll do whatever I wanna do with their junk... a bonfire comes to mind...
Reply
Knifie Sp00nie said 10:18AM on 2-02-2007
Damn. And I had just pirated a copy of Vista Home. Now I've got to go download a copy of Business.
Reply
Alex said 10:31AM on 2-02-2007
Microsoft trying to squeeze even more money from their customers with unreasonable requests? How out of character! On a good day, Microsoft has the corporate ethics of a crack whore. While screwing the customer, you might as well try to pick his pocket too.
Reply
Dmitry Chestnykh said 12:02PM on 2-02-2007
I guess it's a wrong interpretation.
Read:
“USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system.”
May NOT use SOFTWARE **INSTALLED** ON THE LICENSED DEVICE within a virtual system.
If software is NOT INSTALLED on the device, it's OK to use it within a virtual system. You don't install it on your Mac (unless you use BootCamp)-- you install it on the virtual machine.
EULA for Ultimate Edition claims:
"You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device."
This means that you may use the same software both within a virtual machine and on your device. For example, BootCamp + Parallels liked to BootCamp installation.
(P.S. I'm not a laywer.)
Reply
Alex said 12:07PM on 2-02-2007
Dimity, If that's what they meant they would forbid it for all versions of Vista. They don't want you using the same license of Vista in two places. They don't need to specify a VM in order to forbid the installation of one license in two PCs.
They are specifically trying to forbid you from running Vista in a VM environment.
Reply
Tim said 12:11PM on 2-02-2007
I have to agree with hs's interpretation of the EULA: You can run it in a VM, but not on the original hardware AND in a VM.
I can confirm that Vista Home Basic installs just fine in a Parallels VM, and that it runs and activates without a single complaint, even after you install the Parallels Tools.
Not that I care what a damn EULA says anyway. I consider them to be conditions imposed after the sale, and printing "you must agree to the EULA" on the box doesn't cut it if the EULA isn't actually printed on the box (in full). I don't live in a state that has codified EULA's into law... yet.
Reply
Jon Hart said 12:27PM on 2-02-2007
What MS dont want you doing is installing vista on a machine, installing VM software on top of that, and then installing vista ( with the same license ) in the VM.
That is, you can only install it in one place. Of course you can buy another copy, or get a more expensive edition which explicitly allows simultaneous use in a VM.
I dont think that MS was thinking about Parallels with this clause, they are thinking about virtual PC and vmware, which are both free, running on windows.
In particular, I dont think there is any issue with using Parallels to run a bootcamp install, you are not running the same license simultaneously.
Reply
Keith Sheehan said 12:58PM on 2-02-2007
If you install Vista via Boot Camp and then use it in Parallels with the Boot Camp partition as the source are you in compliance then? In this case, you are only using one copy of the installed software in either environment.
Reply
Donald Burr said 1:50PM on 2-02-2007
Technically, it is possible to determine whether you are running from within a VM or not.
The "quick and dirty" way is by examining the "PCI" ID's returned by the virtualized hardware. On a "real" PC, they would return something like "Promise IDE controller" or "Creative Labs Sound Blaster audio card", but when running under VMware, it returns "VMware Generic IDE Controller" or something like that; Parallels does the same thing.
The more tricky way is achieved by running a certain extremely low level CPU microcode instruction and examining its results, which differ depending on whether you are running on a "real" or virtual system. An excellent discussion of this can be found here:
http://invisiblethings.org/papers/redpill.html
Reply
Steve said 3:28PM on 2-02-2007
Imagine the uproar if Apple Inc was to keep their operating system from being installed on any non-Apple hardware! Scandalous!
Reply
Dmitry Chestnykh said 5:37AM on 2-03-2007
> Dimity, If that's what they meant they would forbid it for all versions of Vista.
Nope, they explicitly allowed to use Ultimate edition under VM & on hardware simultaneosly.
Reply