Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Alternative Operating Systems > Alternative OS Reference > Parallels & BootCamp = Two WinXP Licenses?

Parallels & BootCamp = Two WinXP Licenses? (Page 2)
Thread Tools
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2007, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by sjohnson4343 View Post
This thread is way too long.

I think you guys are missing something. When you call in and re-register, you are using another seat on your license. Microsoft allows you to install your OS twice. When you automatically re-register within a new OS, it connects to MS, sees if you have any other activations, if not activates and you're done.

There is a grace registration for problems. That's when you need to call in. If you meet the criteria, you get another activation code. If you've already installed twice, then no activation key and a new license, read: a new copy of Vista/XP is needed.

That's NOT a free registration you're getting. You're using both of your licenses that you can install on two PC's one one! You should only have to use one if you are in fact installing on the same PC.
Mr. (or Mrs./Mz.) Johnson: ANY license of Windows, EXCEPT so-called "Family Packs", and Volume Licenses (incorrectly called "Corporate" licenses, since anyone may purchase a multiple-user license, not just corporations), includes a SINGLE SEAT. PERIOD.

I understand that it has been a long tradition to think that a license to Windows includes the right to install it on both your Desktop and your Laptop (or two machines), but this has NEVER been a part of ANY single-user EULA. As far as I know, a retail copy of Vista Business is a SINGLE-SEAT license.

Additionally, this tradition began with a misunderstanding of the Microsoft EULA in general. A single-user Microsoft Office license DOES allow the SAME user to install the SAME license on both a single desktop and a single laptop, but both may NOT be running at the same time, and they must both belong to the same person. But this extends ONLY to the License for Office. PERIOD.

Unless, of course it is a volume license (requiring a minimum of 5 seats of either Windows or Office.) Unlearned folks misunderstood this to mean that, "if Office owners have this right, so do Windows Owners." But no such right exists for single-user licenses of Windows.

Don't believe me? Check with Microsoft Legal. They will clear up the confusion for you quickly.

Donald McDaniel
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jul 2007
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2007, 03:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by orthocross View Post
1) The Window EULA has ALWAYS stated that one MUST purchase TWO licenses to use TWO installations on the same machine.
2) Only Windows licenses previous to Vista may be used with virtualization software.
3) Advising folks to LIE to a Microsoft employee is obviously at least two crimes:
a) It would be seen as practicing Law without a license (if one is not a Lawyer), a crime as far as I know ( I am not a lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, and consult one, if you want to be sure). This is NOT to be taken as legal advice -- it is only my opinion as a layman).
b) It would be seen as a conspiracy to defraud Microsoft, and they would not take this lightly, and may prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Such conspiracy, as far as I know, would NOT be a civil infraction, it would more than probably be a felony under both local and Federal law.

I hope this opens a few eyes out there...
Let me correct myself: I wrongly stated that only versions of Windows previous to Vista are licensed to use virtualization technology. I misstated myself. I MEANT to say any versions of Windows EXCEPT XP Home, Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium are licensed to use virtualization technology. XP Pro IS licensed for such use, as is Vista Business.

NOTE that the XP Home EULA was written BEFORE modern duall-core processors were on the market, and does not include the clause "licensed for two processors", as XP Pro does, so Home is not necessarily covered by the EULA.

BTW, this clause does NOT refer to two processors on two machines, it means a SINGLE machine with two cores, such as the Intel/AMD processors, which have both a floating-point processor core and an Integer processor core on the same die, or a normal CPU PLUS an FPU on different dies, in the same machine, as was the case until chips incorporating both processors on the same die were developed.

It has NEVER referred "two processors" in TWO or more machines. A SINGLE SITE LICENSES refers to a SINGLE MACHINE, not MULTIPLE MACHINES. Those using virtualization technology on the SAME MACHINE have only a SINGLE SITE license, UNLESS they install TWO single-site licenses.

ONE ("singlular) "SITE-LICENSE" for ONE (again "singular") MACHINE, unless the license is a multiple-site license, such as a Volume License.
That is, ONE "site" = "ONE discrete computer with two or more cores", NOT "multiple discrete computers".

Single-user licenses are licensed for a SINGLE discrete machine, whether it has one or more cores.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 24, 2007, 03:49 PM
 
That's a lot of posting for a new user!

Please note that it is and always has been the policy of the MacNN Forums to explicitly disallow any discussion of how to circumvent the requirements of any software and/or OS license agreement. We do not condone lying to Microsoft, nor do we allow discussions of how to "get away" with anything.

Lacking any specific guidance from Microsoft, I do not see a difference between installing Windows XP on an Intel Mac through Boot Camp and then also running it via Parallels. There is NO INSTALLATION involved in Parallels using the XP image on a Windows partition, therefore there is no violation of the EULA.

Note that I said XP. I am well aware that Vista's license has specific requirements about virtualization-and that only the Ultimate version appears to allow virtualization at all (though there is some pretty weird wording in those EULAs).

Further, EVERYONE reading this thread should keep in mind that it was originally about XP, NOT VISTA. Vista is too new and there are too few contributors with actual experience using it on a Mac to allow us to consider much of what is posted here authoritative.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NYC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 3, 2007, 04:37 PM
 
Pre-reply disclaimers: I am not a Mac user, nor a Microsoft lawyer. But I found a useful piece of information (from some comment on the Lifehacker.com blog, don't remember which), and I think it would serve the community well.

One of the things that Windows Activation looks at is the MAC address of the computer's ethernet adaptor. By default, the MAC ("Media Access Control", not Macintosh) address of the built-in ethernet card, and the virtual one that Parallels creates are different. However, according to my source, there is some option in Parallels (probably in the VM's settings) that allows you to change that virtual MAC address.

What the source recommended doing was find the MAC address of the Mac's ethernet card, and then copy it into the respective option in Parallels. It seems like a viable solution, and according to him, it worked.

Probable origin of solution: Geek To Live: Virtualize AND dual-boot the same Windows on your Mac - Lifehacker
( Last edited by michaelper22; Sep 26, 2007 at 11:07 AM. )
     
Forum Regular
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 12:42 AM
 
thank you for explaining the process
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 26, 2007, 03:39 PM
 
For all the gory details on Windows Product Activation in XP, read the Technical Bulletin straight from Microsoft.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 12:06 PM
 
Zombie Thread Back from the Dead.

OK, time has passed, maybe there has been further clarification. Anyone have more up-to-date information on this subject? I'm going to pass my iMac running Vista in Fusion on to my son and he'd rather run Windows in BootCamp for games.

I'm also about to install Windows 7 on a new iMac and maybe I can do this the "right" way from the start, whatever the right way is.

So any updates? Two licenses, one license, order of install?
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 9, 2010, 05:01 PM
 
Win 7 has more stringent activation requirements than XP; if you are running two installations of Win 7, you MUST HAVE two licenses.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 10, 2010, 12:07 PM
 
Any info on Vista? It seems to be touchy about running the game my son plays in simulation (Roblox) but I hate to go through the whole reinstall rigamarole.
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2010, 04:25 PM
 
Edit: according to VMWare's web site you can boot into your bootcamp partition as a virtual machine using Fusion. So, one install, one license. Therefore, if you need to run high-power system-intensive software you can use bootcamp to run Windows or if you just want to doodle around in Windows you can keep it up and running in Fusion.

But no info yet on whether this applies to certain versions of Windows and/or Fusion or if it applies to all.

http://blip.tv/file/2719793

Here is their helpful video on Windows and licenses:

http://blip.tv/file/2719920
( Last edited by hart; Jul 12, 2010 at 05:28 PM. )
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 12, 2010, 07:48 PM
 
Vista sort of broke the ground for Win7's activation-you still need two licenses for running two different installations.

Both Fusion and Parallels let you run a VM based on a disk image. In that case, you're running ONE installation-with a different startup profile. If you have TWO installations (I said this before) you need two licenses.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2010, 11:39 AM
 
My question has been do you have to choose between the option of running via bootcamp and running at the same time as your mac OS if you don't want to buy two licenses and the answer is apparently no for Fusion.

It seems that Fusion can run the bootcamp installation as if it was a virtual machine at the same time as your Mac OS but it is, in fact not a virtual machine install. Plus you still maintain the option to run it in bootcamp. So you can have both options with one install and one license as long as you do the bootcamp install first.

Assuming I'm understanding VMware's information this means I (or someone with needs like mine) doesn't have to choose between the two ways of running Windows.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 13, 2010, 05:22 PM
 
You are understanding VMWare's information correctly. And as I said, Parallels will do this as well. I had problems with Parallels doing this if I installed the (frequent) MS updates while running it in Parallels, but that was a long time ago.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:12 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2015 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2