>-----Original Message-----
>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming that
>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
>could this license be an OEM license?
>.
>

> if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming that the computer
> have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second license? and if yes,
> could this license be an OEM license?

> Yes, you need a separate license. This license can be OEM as long as it
> isn't the same license as the host computer. Also, an OEM license can't be
> transferred, so you can't delete the first machine and use the OEM install
> on a second virtual machine, as per the license

> ... Once you delete a virtual machine, you're throwing the machine
> away, and when you create a new one, you have a brand new computer. It's
> not really a question on whether you agree or not, it's simply the way the
> license works ;)

>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming that
> the computer already
>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
> license? and if yes,
>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>.
>>
> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on this
> exact subject.
>
> Short answer: Yes. No.
>
> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on this
> exact subject.
>
> Short answer: Yes. No.
>
> Scott
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming that
> the computer already
>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
> license? and if yes,
>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>.
>>

> Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP] wrote:
> > Yes, you need a separate license. This license can be OEM as long as it
> > isn't the same license as the host computer. Also, an OEM license can't
> > transferred, so you can't delete the first machine and use the OEM
> > on a second virtual machine, as per the license
>
> I disagree -- An OEM license allows you to format the machine and
> reinstall, or to replace the hard drive at your discretion.
>
>
> --
> Peter: I read a book about this sort of thing once.
> Brian: Are you sure it was a book? Are you sure it wasn't nothing?
> Peter: Oh yeah

>
> No, deleting the virtual machine is the same as throwing away a machine.
> Creating a virtual machine is building a brand new computer. Not the same as
> replacing a hard drive in a real physical machine, hence it doesn't play out
> the way you think.

> So, in your opinion, if I have an OEM Windows license on a physical
> computer, and I wipe the hard disk, I must then acquire a new OEM
> license if I want to re-install the OS onto the wiped drive? (Wiping
> the hard disk is equivalent to throwing away or reformatting the .vhd
> file) It is not a new computer; it is a new copy of the data on the
> same storage media.
>
> I'm sorry, but if I've understood your position correctly, I think it
> is seriously over aggressive, and will essentially prove to be
> indefensible.

> in article #(email address - cut out), Robert Moir at
> (email address - cut out) wrote on 10/9/04 3:32 AM:
>
>>
>> No, deleting the virtual machine is the same as throwing away a machine.
>> Creating a virtual machine is building a brand new computer. Not the same
>> as
>> replacing a hard drive in a real physical machine, hence it doesn't play
>> out
>> the way you think.
>
>
> With all due respect, it think your position is still quite extreme.
> Again,
> using the analogy of a physical machine (which at one time Microsoft
> supported as the natural method to think about licensing issues on virtual
> as opposed to hardware machines), removing a once functional virtual
> machine
> from an active list is no different from taking a physical machine out of
> a
> currently functional status/inventory list after removing a power supply,
> disk drive, or the video card from a physical machine, rendering it
> inoperable and temporarily unfunctional.
>
> If at some later point that machine is revived (new power supply, drive,
> or
> replace the video card) I can still use the original OEM license on that
> machine. (We're talking like about those same licenses that come now come
> glued to the very case's box, right?) The newly revived virtual machine
> has
> precisely the same hardware authorized on that original OEM list.
>
> Alternately, by what you are suggesting, there would be different
> licensing
> implications for not deleting the virtual machine from the list, but
> instead
> just using a utility to reformat the .vhd!? What else, for just renaming
> the virtual machine!?
>
> Perhaps a user forum is not the place in which to discuss personal
> interpretation of licensing issues -- I just cannot believe at this point
> that your perspective accurately reflects Microsoft's legal licensing
> opinions.
>

> Yes - but it is tied to the original machine you installed it on, by
> motherboard. Once you delete a virtual machine, you're throwing the machine
> away, and when you create a new one, you have a brand new computer. It's
> not really a question on whether you agree or not, it's simply the way the
> license works ;)

> Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP] wrote:
>> Yes - but it is tied to the original machine you installed it on, by
>> motherboard. Once you delete a virtual machine, you're throwing the
>> machine
>> away, and when you create a new one, you have a brand new computer. It's
>> not really a question on whether you agree or not, it's simply the way
>> the
>> license works ;)
>
> Fair enough -- How about if I maintain the VMC file, and just delete or
> reformat the VHD as required?
>
> Of course, if we accept that definition (That the VMC file is "the
> computer"), then if I mirror my VMC+VHD files to two or more physical
> machines, do I now need two OEM licenses? If we accept that the "VMC"
> file is the machine, then I would suggest not even though common sense
> says that you would need another OEM license.
>
> Another consideration, I purchased WinXP Pro with my laptop. I've had the
> laptop swapped four times due to hardware defects, and am still using my
> original OEM license. The instructions tell me to move my hard drive to
> the new machine so that I don't have to reinstall my operating system
> (Since the defects were not drive related)
>
> Either this is legal, in which case it stands that an OEM license should
> be reusable if you delete a VPC and start over (as long as the previous
> VPC is no longer functional), or I have been advised to violate the
> license terms by my laptop supplier, in which case I should notify
> Microsoft that I was sold a pirated license and I should pursue a civil
> lawsuit against my laptop supplier immediately for fraudulently selling me
> an unlicensed copy of Windows XP.
>
> The biggest reason I see this as being worthwhile discussing is that an
> OEM license is the cheapest single license you can buy, so if it's
> legitimate for use in a VPC, it's potentially a significant cost savings
> for a single VPC user -- I know my dad is considering using VPC for
> internet surfing to keep his PC clean (He still uses IE some of the time,
> and doesn't always patch because he doesn't trust Microsoft)
>
> --
> So you're a feminist. Isn't that cute.

> Mike Brannigan's post most accurately reflects the MS licence position, but
> I'm sure he'll rush to point out that he's not (well as far as I know) a
> lawyer. It's not my personal interpretation of the licence laws that matters
> at all, Its Microsoft's position that matters, and should a dispute arise it
> could be ultimately a judge's too. I don't enter into it. Its my opinion
> that OEM licences are unsuitable for work with VMs because of this
> confusion - in other words, whoever turns out to be right my recommendation
> is to avoid the confusion in the first place.
>
> I've certainly always considered separate virtual machines to be 2 different
> computers for technical reasons, (e.g. the network card MAC address has to
> change for a start), so if I've already accepted that two virtual machine
> instances are two completely different machines for technical reasons then I
> have no problem with seeing that apply consistently for all other issues
> that arise.
>
> If you stop using a virtual machine and put the files for it into "cold
> storage" somewhere then you have not destroyed the "virtual machine", simply
> done the electronic equivilant of putting a item of hardware into a storage
> room. You haven't destroyed the virtual machine and hence haven't lost the
> licence.
>
> If you destroy the .vmc and .vhd file and set up a new machine, then as far
> as i'm concerned that is technically a new machine. My own personal
> interpretation is again a complete legal layperson's opinion and thus
> useless but I'd say that its down to intent - are you intending to run one
> copy of Windows on two virtual machines, or are you just rebuilding an image
> over and over as part of a testing cycle? In my book the last option is fine
> but the first is not.
>
> As for "The newly revived virtual machine has precisely the same hardware
> authorized on that original OEM list.", then the obvious answer would be
> what if you phoned Dell and ordered 2 machines exactly the same from them.
> Is that one computer or two? How many of those machines does the OEM licence
> "allow" you to install one copy of Windows onto?
>
> Maybe my position is too extreme but I'm not a lawyer settling a legal issue
> of what you can and cannot do, I'm a techie trying to find a decent solution
> to a problem... so we're back to my earlier comment about avoiding the
> problem by not using OEM licences being the easiest thing to do. It might be
> extreme, but its simple.

> Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP] wrote:
> > Yes - but it is tied to the original machine you installed it on, by
> > motherboard. Once you delete a virtual machine, you're throwing the
> > away, and when you create a new one, you have a brand new computer.
> > not really a question on whether you agree or not, it's simply the way
> > license works ;)
>
> Fair enough -- How about if I maintain the VMC file, and just delete or
> reformat the VHD as required?
> Of course, if we accept that definition (That the VMC file is "the
> computer"), then if I mirror my VMC+VHD files to two or more physical
> machines, do I now need two OEM licenses? If we accept that the "VMC"
> file is the machine, then I would suggest not even though common sense
> says that you would need another OEM license.
> Another consideration, I purchased WinXP Pro with my laptop. I've had
> the laptop swapped four times due to hardware defects, and am still
> using my original OEM license. The instructions tell me to move my hard
> drive to the new machine so that I don't have to reinstall my operating
> system (Since the defects were not drive related)
> Either this is legal, in which case it stands that an OEM license should
> be reusable if you delete a VPC and start over (as long as the previous
> VPC is no longer functional), or I have been advised to violate the
> license terms by my laptop supplier, in which case I should notify
> Microsoft that I was sold a pirated license and I should pursue a civil
> lawsuit against my laptop supplier immediately for fraudulently selling
> me an unlicensed copy of Windows XP.
> The biggest reason I see this as being worthwhile discussing is that an
> OEM license is the cheapest single license you can buy, so if it's
> legitimate for use in a VPC, it's potentially a significant cost savings
> for a single VPC user -- I know my dad is considering using VPC for
> internet surfing to keep his PC clean (He still uses IE some of the
> time, and doesn't always patch because he doesn't trust Microsoft)

> Each instance of the OS, running or not, requires a separate license.

> With all due respect, it think your position is still quite extreme.
> Again, using the analogy of a physical machine (which at one time
> Microsoft supported as the natural method to think about licensing
> issues on virtual as opposed to hardware machines), removing a once
> functional virtual machine from an active list is no different from
> taking a physical machine out of a currently functional
> status/inventory list after removing a power supply, disk drive, or
> the video card from a physical machine, rendering it inoperable and
> temporarily unfunctional.
>
> If at some later point that machine is revived (new power supply,
> drive, or replace the video card) I can still use the original OEM
> license on that machine. (We're talking like about those same
> licenses that come now come glued to the very case's box, right?)
> The newly revived virtual machine has precisely the same hardware
> authorized on that original OEM list.
>
> Alternately, by what you are suggesting, there would be different
> licensing implications for not deleting the virtual machine from the
> list, but instead just using a utility to reformat the .vhd!? What
> else, for just renaming the virtual machine!?
>
> Perhaps a user forum is not the place in which to discuss personal
> interpretation of licensing issues -- I just cannot believe at this
> point that your perspective accurately reflects Microsoft's legal
> licensing opinions.

> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> > Each instance of the OS, running or not, requires a separate license.
>
> Actually that is not correct. You can freely create backups of the
> original media, and/or an installed system.
>
> Since you top posted and didn't trim it's not really clear which part of
> my message you're responding to though...

>-----Original Message-----
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming
>> the computer already
>>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
>> license? and if yes,
>>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>>.
>>>
>"Scott Baker" <(email address - cut out)>
>news:1aae01c4ad82$8eec6fb0$(email address - cut out)...
>> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on
>> exact subject.
>>
>> Short answer: Yes. No.
>>
>
>Actuallly Scott - yes and yes.
>
>The poster does require a valid license for each VM they
>require the second Windows XP license assuming they are
>licensed customer; If they can use an OEM license for
>subject to the one time use license in that if that eve
>OEM license is gone forever.
>
>--
>
>Regards,
>
>Mike
>--
>Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
>rights
>
>Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions,
>newsgroups
>
>"Scott Baker" <(email address - cut out)>
>news:1aae01c4ad82$8eec6fb0$(email address - cut out)...
>> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on
>> exact subject.
>>
>> Short answer: Yes. No.
>>
>> Scott
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming
>> the computer already
>>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
>> license? and if yes,
>>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>>.
>>>
>
>
>.
>

> But I'm not supposed to sell you an OEM copy of the OS
> unless you are buying hardware that (presumably) will be
> used for a new system.
>
> Scott
>
> But I'm not supposed to sell you an OEM copy of the OS
> unless you are buying hardware that (presumably) will be
> used for a new system.
>
> Scott
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming
> that
>>> the computer already
>>>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
>>> license? and if yes,
>>>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>>>.
>>>>
>>"Scott Baker" <(email address - cut out)>
> wrote in message
>>news:1aae01c4ad82$8eec6fb0$(email address - cut out)...
>>> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on
> this
>>> exact subject.
>>>
>>> Short answer: Yes. No.
>>>
>>
>>Actuallly Scott - yes and yes.
>>
>>The poster does require a valid license for each VM they
> build. So would
>>require the second Windows XP license assuming they are
> not a volume
>>licensed customer; If they can use an OEM license for
> this - They would be
>>subject to the one time use license in that if that eve
> deleted the VM the
>>OEM license is gone forever.
>>
>>--
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Mike
>>--
>>Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>>
>>This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers no
>>rights
>>
>>Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions,
> please use these
>>newsgroups
>>
>>"Scott Baker" <(email address - cut out)>
> wrote in message
>>news:1aae01c4ad82$8eec6fb0$(email address - cut out)...
>>> Read the _many_ postings already in the newsgroup on
> this
>>> exact subject.
>>>
>>> Short answer: Yes. No.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>if I install an XP OS in a virtual machine,assuming
> that
>>> the computer already
>>>>have a licensed XP Pro OS, do I have to buy a second
>>> license? and if yes,
>>>>could this license be an OEM license?
>>>>.
>>>>
>>
>>
>>.
>>

> Again
>
> I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> for
> the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> I continue testing this way.
> Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
>
> I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> applications.
> thankyou all

> Again
>
> I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> for
> the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> I continue testing this way.
> Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
>
> I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> applications.
> thankyou all
> Again
>
> I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> for
> the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> I continue testing this way.
> Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
>
> I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> applications.
> thankyou all

>>I would agree -- Common sense dictates that if you have a second
>>instance (and especially one on a second set of physical hardware), you
>>need a second license -- But I'm not convinced that deleting and
>>recreating a VMC would constitute a new machine.
>
> And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?
>>If we don't accept that definition, then deleting and recreating the VMC
>>shouldn't invalidate an OEM license, it's no more then a reinstall.
>
> You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the "Create
> a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
> platform to run other machine" wizard
>>My feeling is that the VMC is not what defines the specific machine (to
>>tie the OEM license to a set of hardware/specific machine)
>
> The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC, then
> you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer settings set
> in the VMC
>>I would suggest that the VMC file is not the determining factor, but
>>rather, that OEM licenses used for VPCs would be assigned to the
>>physical machine regardless of whether you delete the VMC+VHD and start
>>over. In other words, you would be within the license to stick
>>additional OEM stickers on the case beside the host's OEM sticker, and
>>use those OEM stickers as guests on that physical host reinstalling as
>>many times as you want, as long as you never have more VPCs then you
>>have stickers on the machine.
>
> Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are and
> mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the same),
> so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
> since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.
>>Unfortunately, I don't know of any alternatives (free or paid) which can
>>"guarantee" safety (plus a reasonable level of functionality),
>>especially if you choose (as my dad does) to not patch immediately.
>
> VM browsing doesn't guaruntee safety either. If your dad gets Blaster in a
> VM and isn't patched on the host, it's only a matter of seconds.
>>I'm writing this post from ThunderBird and I've used
>>FireFox/Bird/Phoenix since the day it came out, and before that I ran
>>Mozilla nightlies, but I can think of more then one security-critical
>>patch within the last few months -- While I haven't personally had any
>>virus or piece of spyware sneak into any system under my control since
>>before Jan-2000, I am very conscious of the potential risks.
>
> Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.
>>One thing my dad and I have in common: I don't believe in backing up a
>>computer. I backup my data, I backup my original install media, but I
>>don't generally backup an installed system -- It's usually more trouble
>>then it's worth to try to restore vs the time to rebuild the system.
>>The exception is mission critical servers, but even then, I'd rather
>>have a fallover system in place and rebuild properly.
>
> Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
> Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important too

> Hi,
>
> "DevilsPGD" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?
>>
>> To varying degrees of "equal", yes. For licensing purposes, I'll agree
>> completely I think. Admittedly, sharing a CPU (and CPUID?) introduces
>> another wrinkle, but I'll ignore that one for the moment.
>
> Ben Armstrong has an awesome explanation of "virtualization" on his blog -
> see:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx
>
> Going by the "CPU partition" definition, licensing works based on the
> limit of CPUs in a partition. What I mean by this is, if you own a
> processor-based licensing product, like ISA Server, and you have a
> physical computer, with 4 processors, and you set a hardware partition of
> 2 processors, then you need to only buy a 2 processor license.
>
> Now, VPC it would seem, partitions your CPU so you're technically running
> on "another" CPU, because of the partition, even though you're running on
> the same chip
>
> To further extend the licensing definition, and not many people know this,
> but if you partition a hard drive into two partitions, and you wish to
> install Windows on both of them, you will need 2 licenses. Same machine,
> same hard drive. Not the same license (unless it is a volume license)
>
>> If it's the VMC, then I can copy it from one host to another, and still
>> only have one "PC" -- This is obviously not correct, but I'm not sure how
>> to define the difference in concrete terms.
>
> I see what you're saying. I believe it's like this:
> Computer A has VPC and Windows XP in a guest installed. You want to move
> it to Computer B. In order to do this, you need to:
> a) Remove the machine from the VPC console
> b) Move the VHD and VMC from Computer A to Computer B
> c) When I said "move" in (b), I meant move. Not copy. You must delete
> the original
>
>>> You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the
>>> "Create
>>> a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
>>> platform to run other machine" wizard
>>
>> So if I were to convince the VMWare folks to change the GUI verbiage, it
>> would bypass the OEM restrictions? -- I can't agree with relying on GUI
>> verbiage.
>
> It's not the verbiage, so-to-speak, it's what it represented by it. When
> you create a new machine, you are taking nothing and creating a new
> machine from it. When you use an existing machine, you are taking this
> existing cimputer and latching it into VPC in order to run it
>
>>>
>>> The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC,
>>> then
>>> you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer settings
>>> set
>>> in the VMC
>>
>> Sure. So as long as I copy the VMC completely (including the MAC
>> address), can I use one OEM license on multiple physical hosts?
>
> No - As I said earlier, even if you want to install 2 copies of Windows on
> a single machine, you need 2 licenses, therefore it's "obvious" that in
> order to run the same copy of Windows on more than one machine, you will
> need more than one license.
>
> Then we throw the mix of OEM in there - where the machine can't be moved.
> It would be my stance that because VPC emulates the motherboard (which it
> does), then you can, in fact, move the OEM copy to a different host as
> long as there are no remnants in a runable form on the original machine.
> But now I need to pull my "not a lawyer" badge out again and clip it to my
> shirt.
>
>> Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this position when it comes to my
>> own licensing -- I have more then enough full licenses for all my VPCs
>> right now.
>
> Same here. We're discussing this for future generations though ;-)
>
>>> Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are
>>> and
>>> mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the
>>> same),
>>> so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
>>> since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but it makes just as much sense as attaching the OEM license
>> to the "New" and "Remove" buttons in the GUI.
>
> We're not - we're tying it to the virtual machine on the host. If you
> gzip your VMC and VHD, then they can't be run without modification, and
> would therefore be allowed to sit on the hard drive but not use up a
> license
>
>>> Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.
>>
>> Yes, definitely. It's about managing risk. Well, that, plus when IE
>> crashes it tends to take down all of Explorer, which annoys the carp out
>> of me...
>
> Ah, yep, used to happen to me too. Small tip for the future - start IE by
> clicking the E button. If you load "My Computer" (or any folder, etc) and
> then browse the web, then you are using Explorer. If you load a new
> instance of IE by clicking the blue E, you will be running "iexplore.exe"
> which won't take down Explorer
>
>>> Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
>>> Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important
>>> too
>>
>> Sometimes, although to be honest, when it comes to my servers I tend to
>> avoid any software which can't be restored simply by coping the files and
>> possibly registry entries. Other then IIS, 100% of my servers can
>> rebuild themselves using the same scripts that maintain them on a day to
>> day basis -- All I have to do is install+patch+secure the OS, install the
>> services (and sometimes the applications themselves, although often not)
>> and fire up my scheduler. It will run a few scripts, the server works,
>> and all is well.
>>
>> It's a personal preference, but it has served me well.
>
> Yep - and I hate rebuilding machines from backups because there's nothing
> like a clean install, and the machine's bound to run better after one
> anyway. I'm just saying, on the one hand you can't argue that your
> machine goes down and you are caused X amount of downtime for rebuilding
> it, where on the other hand, you have a way to rebuild much quicker but
> choose not to take it
>
>> --
>> 1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans
>> a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill
>> of watching paint dry.
>
>
> --
> --Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
> http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
> tutorial site :-)
> http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find
> out here
> Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
> emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.
>
>
>

>> And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?
>
> To varying degrees of "equal", yes. For licensing purposes, I'll agree
> completely I think. Admittedly, sharing a CPU (and CPUID?) introduces
> another wrinkle, but I'll ignore that one for the moment.
> If it's the VMC, then I can copy it from one host to another, and still
> only have one "PC" -- This is obviously not correct, but I'm not sure how
> to define the difference in concrete terms.
>> You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the
>> "Create
>> a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
>> platform to run other machine" wizard
>
> So if I were to convince the VMWare folks to change the GUI verbiage, it
> would bypass the OEM restrictions? -- I can't agree with relying on GUI
> verbiage.
>>
>> The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC,
>> then
>> you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer settings
>> set
>> in the VMC
>
> Sure. So as long as I copy the VMC completely (including the MAC
> address), can I use one OEM license on multiple physical hosts?
> Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this position when it comes to my
> own licensing -- I have more then enough full licenses for all my VPCs
> right now.
>> Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are
>> and
>> mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the
>> same),
>> so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
>> since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.
>
> Perhaps not, but it makes just as much sense as attaching the OEM license
> to the "New" and "Remove" buttons in the GUI.
>> Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.
>
> Yes, definitely. It's about managing risk. Well, that, plus when IE
> crashes it tends to take down all of Explorer, which annoys the carp out
> of me...
>> Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
>> Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important
>> too
>
> Sometimes, although to be honest, when it comes to my servers I tend to
> avoid any software which can't be restored simply by coping the files and
> possibly registry entries. Other then IIS, 100% of my servers can rebuild
> themselves using the same scripts that maintain them on a day to day
> basis -- All I have to do is install+patch+secure the OS, install the
> services (and sometimes the applications themselves, although often not)
> and fire up my scheduler. It will run a few scripts, the server works,
> and all is well.
>
> It's a personal preference, but it has served me well.
> --
> 1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans
> a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill
> of watching paint dry.

>>Yes, definitely. It's about managing risk. Well, that, plus when IE
>>crashes it tends to take down all of Explorer, which annoys the carp out
>>of me...
>
> Ah, yep, used to happen to me too. Small tip for the future - start IE by
> clicking the E button. If you load "My Computer" (or any folder, etc) and
> then browse the web, then you are using Explorer. If you load a new
> instance of IE by clicking the blue E, you will be running "iexplore.exe"
> which won't take down Explorer

> Hi,
>
> "DevilsPGD" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>> And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?
>>
>> To varying degrees of "equal", yes. For licensing purposes, I'll agree
>> completely I think. Admittedly, sharing a CPU (and CPUID?) introduces
>> another wrinkle, but I'll ignore that one for the moment.
>
> Ben Armstrong has an awesome explanation of "virtualization" on his blog -
> see:
> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx
>
> Going by the "CPU partition" definition, licensing works based on the
> limit of CPUs in a partition. What I mean by this is, if you own a
> processor-based licensing product, like ISA Server, and you have a
> physical computer, with 4 processors, and you set a hardware partition of
> 2 processors, then you need to only buy a 2 processor license.
>
> Now, VPC it would seem, partitions your CPU so you're technically running
> on "another" CPU, because of the partition, even though you're running on
> the same chip
>
> To further extend the licensing definition, and not many people know this,
> but if you partition a hard drive into two partitions, and you wish to
> install Windows on both of them, you will need 2 licenses. Same machine,
> same hard drive. Not the same license (unless it is a volume license)
>
>> If it's the VMC, then I can copy it from one host to another, and still
>> only have one "PC" -- This is obviously not correct, but I'm not sure how
>> to define the difference in concrete terms.
>
> I see what you're saying. I believe it's like this:
> Computer A has VPC and Windows XP in a guest installed. You want to move
> it to Computer B. In order to do this, you need to:
> a) Remove the machine from the VPC console
> b) Move the VHD and VMC from Computer A to Computer B
> c) When I said "move" in (b), I meant move. Not copy. You must delete
> the original
>
>>> You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the
>>> "Create
>>> a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
>>> platform to run other machine" wizard
>>
>> So if I were to convince the VMWare folks to change the GUI verbiage, it
>> would bypass the OEM restrictions? -- I can't agree with relying on GUI
>> verbiage.
>
> It's not the verbiage, so-to-speak, it's what it represented by it. When
> you create a new machine, you are taking nothing and creating a new
> machine from it. When you use an existing machine, you are taking this
> existing cimputer and latching it into VPC in order to run it
>
>>>
>>> The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC,
>>> then
>>> you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer settings
>>> set
>>> in the VMC
>>
>> Sure. So as long as I copy the VMC completely (including the MAC
>> address), can I use one OEM license on multiple physical hosts?
>
> No - As I said earlier, even if you want to install 2 copies of Windows on
> a single machine, you need 2 licenses, therefore it's "obvious" that in
> order to run the same copy of Windows on more than one machine, you will
> need more than one license.
>
> Then we throw the mix of OEM in there - where the machine can't be moved.
> It would be my stance that because VPC emulates the motherboard (which it
> does), then you can, in fact, move the OEM copy to a different host as
> long as there are no remnants in a runable form on the original machine.
> But now I need to pull my "not a lawyer" badge out again and clip it to my
> shirt.
>
>> Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this position when it comes to my
>> own licensing -- I have more then enough full licenses for all my VPCs
>> right now.
>
> Same here. We're discussing this for future generations though ;-)
>
>>> Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are
>>> and
>>> mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the
>>> same),
>>> so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
>>> since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.
>>
>> Perhaps not, but it makes just as much sense as attaching the OEM license
>> to the "New" and "Remove" buttons in the GUI.
>
> We're not - we're tying it to the virtual machine on the host. If you
> gzip your VMC and VHD, then they can't be run without modification, and
> would therefore be allowed to sit on the hard drive but not use up a
> license
>
>>> Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.
>>
>> Yes, definitely. It's about managing risk. Well, that, plus when IE
>> crashes it tends to take down all of Explorer, which annoys the carp out
>> of me...
>
> Ah, yep, used to happen to me too. Small tip for the future - start IE by
> clicking the E button. If you load "My Computer" (or any folder, etc) and
> then browse the web, then you are using Explorer. If you load a new
> instance of IE by clicking the blue E, you will be running "iexplore.exe"
> which won't take down Explorer
>
>>> Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
>>> Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important
>>> too
>>
>> Sometimes, although to be honest, when it comes to my servers I tend to
>> avoid any software which can't be restored simply by coping the files and
>> possibly registry entries. Other then IIS, 100% of my servers can
>> rebuild themselves using the same scripts that maintain them on a day to
>> day basis -- All I have to do is install+patch+secure the OS, install the
>> services (and sometimes the applications themselves, although often not)
>> and fire up my scheduler. It will run a few scripts, the server works,
>> and all is well.
>>
>> It's a personal preference, but it has served me well.
>
> Yep - and I hate rebuilding machines from backups because there's nothing
> like a clean install, and the machine's bound to run better after one
> anyway. I'm just saying, on the one hand you can't argue that your
> machine goes down and you are caused X amount of downtime for rebuilding
> it, where on the other hand, you have a way to rebuild much quicker but
> choose not to take it
>
>> --
>> 1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans
>> a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill
>> of watching paint dry.
>
>
> --
> --Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
> http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
> tutorial site :-)
> http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find
> out here
> Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
> emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.
>
>
>

> Jonathan,
>
> Perhaps Microsoft needs to define a "virtualized license" or some such
> thing. I think you know what I mean.
>
> Colin
>
> --
> What's another word for synonym?
> "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>> Hi,
>>
>> "DevilsPGD" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...
>>>> And we agree that a virtual machine = physical machine, yes?
>>>
>>> To varying degrees of "equal", yes. For licensing purposes, I'll agree
>>> completely I think. Admittedly, sharing a CPU (and CPUID?) introduces
>>> another wrinkle, but I'll ignore that one for the moment.
>>
>> Ben Armstrong has an awesome explanation of "virtualization" on his
>> blog - see:
>> http://blogs.msdn.com/virtual_pc_guy/archive/2004/10/18/243821.aspx
>>
>> Going by the "CPU partition" definition, licensing works based on the
>> limit of CPUs in a partition. What I mean by this is, if you own a
>> processor-based licensing product, like ISA Server, and you have a
>> physical computer, with 4 processors, and you set a hardware partition of
>> 2 processors, then you need to only buy a 2 processor license.
>>
>> Now, VPC it would seem, partitions your CPU so you're technically running
>> on "another" CPU, because of the partition, even though you're running on
>> the same chip
>>
>> To further extend the licensing definition, and not many people know
>> this, but if you partition a hard drive into two partitions, and you wish
>> to install Windows on both of them, you will need 2 licenses. Same
>> machine, same hard drive. Not the same license (unless it is a volume
>> license)
>>
>>> If it's the VMC, then I can copy it from one host to another, and still
>>> only have one "PC" -- This is obviously not correct, but I'm not sure
>>> how to define the difference in concrete terms.
>>
>> I see what you're saying. I believe it's like this:
>> Computer A has VPC and Windows XP in a guest installed. You want to move
>> it to Computer B. In order to do this, you need to:
>> a) Remove the machine from the VPC console
>> b) Move the VHD and VMC from Computer A to Computer B
>> c) When I said "move" in (b), I meant move. Not copy. You must delete
>> the original
>>
>>>> You're trashing the machine and creating a new one. Notice it's the
>>>> "Create
>>>> a new virtual machine" wizard and not "Use the existing machine as a
>>>> platform to run other machine" wizard
>>>
>>> So if I were to convince the VMWare folks to change the GUI verbiage, it
>>> would bypass the OEM restrictions? -- I can't agree with relying on GUI
>>> verbiage.
>>
>> It's not the verbiage, so-to-speak, it's what it represented by it. When
>> you create a new machine, you are taking nothing and creating a new
>> machine from it. When you use an existing machine, you are taking this
>> existing cimputer and latching it into VPC in order to run it
>>
>>>>
>>>> The VMC does define it though. If you set a MAC address in your VMC,
>>>> then
>>>> you "on-board" NIC gets that MAC. Same with any other computer
>>>> settings set
>>>> in the VMC
>>>
>>> Sure. So as long as I copy the VMC completely (including the MAC
>>> address), can I use one OEM license on multiple physical hosts?
>>
>> No - As I said earlier, even if you want to install 2 copies of Windows
>> on a single machine, you need 2 licenses, therefore it's "obvious" that
>> in order to run the same copy of Windows on more than one machine, you
>> will need more than one license.
>>
>> Then we throw the mix of OEM in there - where the machine can't be moved.
>> It would be my stance that because VPC emulates the motherboard (which it
>> does), then you can, in fact, move the OEM copy to a different host as
>> long as there are no remnants in a runable form on the original machine.
>> But now I need to pull my "not a lawyer" badge out again and clip it to
>> my shirt.
>>
>>> Again, I'm not saying that I agree with this position when it comes to
>>> my own licensing -- I have more then enough full licenses for all my
>>> VPCs right now.
>>
>> Same here. We're discussing this for future generations though ;-)
>>
>>>> Whoa - why's that? The hardware inside your VPC machine where you are
>>>> and
>>>> mine where I am is exactly the same (well, if our host CPUs were the
>>>> same),
>>>> so it's not fair to tie it to the originally installed host, especially
>>>> since I'm planning to upgrade my host soon.
>>>
>>> Perhaps not, but it makes just as much sense as attaching the OEM
>>> license to the "New" and "Remove" buttons in the GUI.
>>
>> We're not - we're tying it to the virtual machine on the host. If you
>> gzip your VMC and VHD, then they can't be run without modification, and
>> would therefore be allowed to sit on the hard drive but not use up a
>> license
>>
>>>> Every piece of software has its vulnerabilities.
>>>
>>> Yes, definitely. It's about managing risk. Well, that, plus when IE
>>> crashes it tends to take down all of Explorer, which annoys the carp out
>>> of me...
>>
>> Ah, yep, used to happen to me too. Small tip for the future - start IE
>> by clicking the E button. If you load "My Computer" (or any folder, etc)
>> and then browse the web, then you are using Explorer. If you load a new
>> instance of IE by clicking the blue E, you will be running "iexplore.exe"
>> which won't take down Explorer
>>
>>>> Same here, but server deserve backing up. There are things deeper in
>>>> Windows than just files, the registry and other settings are important
>>>> too
>>>
>>> Sometimes, although to be honest, when it comes to my servers I tend to
>>> avoid any software which can't be restored simply by coping the files
>>> and possibly registry entries. Other then IIS, 100% of my servers can
>>> rebuild themselves using the same scripts that maintain them on a day to
>>> day basis -- All I have to do is install+patch+secure the OS, install
>>> the services (and sometimes the applications themselves, although often
>>> not) and fire up my scheduler. It will run a few scripts, the server
>>> works, and all is well.
>>>
>>> It's a personal preference, but it has served me well.
>>
>> Yep - and I hate rebuilding machines from backups because there's nothing
>> like a clean install, and the machine's bound to run better after one
>> anyway. I'm just saying, on the one hand you can't argue that your
>> machine goes down and you are caused X amount of downtime for rebuilding
>> it, where on the other hand, you have a way to rebuild much quicker but
>> choose not to take it
>>
>>> --
>>> 1832-Curling is introduced to the U.S., giving Americans
>>> a sport combining the surface of hockey with the thrill
>>> of watching paint dry.
>>
>>
>> --
>> --Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
>> http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
>> tutorial site :-)
>> http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find
>> out here
>> Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
>> emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.
>>
>>
>>
>
>

> "Carlo Paccanoni" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
> > Again
> >
> > I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> > for
> > the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> > I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> > then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> > I continue testing this way.
> > Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
> >
> > I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> > applications.
> > thankyou all
>
> This depends on the Backup media.
> I by backup you just take a copy of the 2 Virtual PC files (that effectively
> make up a Virtual PC) and place these on a network drive or another hard
> disk - that Virtual PC is sill capable of being executed - like you have
> made a duplicate of a physical PC and put it in another room but powered
> off. This requires a license
> If the backup is of the Virtual PC files or a real backup of the virtual PC
> (just as if you were backing up a real PC) to a media such as tape that does
> not allow immediate execution of the Virtual PC then this is a "true" backup
> and as such no license is required. However once restored to an executable
> medium such as disk this does require a license.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Carlo Paccanoni" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
> > Again
> >
> > I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> > for
> > the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> > I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> > then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> > I continue testing this way.
> > Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
> >
> > I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> > applications.
> > thankyou all
>
>
>

> Hi,
>
> With an MSDN subscription you can install an unlimited number of copies for
> test and/or development
>
> --
> --Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
> http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
> tutorial site :-)
> http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find out
> here
> Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
> emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.
>
>
>
>

> Thanks Jonathan, but as a home enthusiast the cost of an MSDN subscription
> is
> still a more than I am prepared to pay.
>
> "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]" wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> With an MSDN subscription you can install an unlimited number of copies
>> for
>> test and/or development
>>
>> --
>> --Jonathan Maltz [Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - IIS, Virtual PC]
>> http://www.visualwin.com - A Windows Server 2003 visual, step-by-step
>> tutorial site :-)
>> http://vpc.visualwin.com - Does <insert OS name> work on VPC 2004? Find
>> out
>> here
>> Only reply by newsgroup. I do not do technical support via email. Any
>> emails I have not authorized are deleted before I see them.
>>
>>
>>
>>

> $300 is the same as a single retail XP Pro license, and will get you an MSDN
> OS Subscription (if I recall the price correctly)
>

> $700

> Jonathan had the price wrong, but the right subscription named. As you
> noted, you need the MSDN OS subscription.
>
> The $700 is estimated retail. You can find it cheaper. Just be careful,
> if the price seems too good to be true, it is.
>
> Scott
>
> David Matson wrote:
>
>
>>$700

>>I hate to be the party-pooper (and if incorrect, tell me, so that I may
>>clean up the poop), but the subscription level that would include winxp
>>would be the 2nd level at $700.
>
>
> You are correct, $700 for a new Operating Systems subscription.
>
> btw, can you possibly change the way your news program posts the signatures?
> Most people visiting Microsoft groups are using OE, and your posts are a bit
> of a pain to read in OE.
>
> - Bob Comer <MS-MVP Virtual PC 2004 for Windows>
>
>
>
> "David Matson" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>

>clean up the poop), but the subscription level that would include winxp
>would be the 2nd level at $700.

> Sure, no problem! (tell me if this post is OK)
>
> -matson
>
>
>
> Robert Comer wrote:
>>>I hate to be the party-pooper (and if incorrect, tell me, so that I may
>>>clean up the poop), but the subscription level that would include winxp
>>>would be the 2nd level at $700.
>>
>>
>> You are correct, $700 for a new Operating Systems subscription.
>>
>> btw, can you possibly change the way your news program posts the
>> signatures? Most people visiting Microsoft groups are using OE, and your
>> posts are a bit of a pain to read in OE.
>>
>> - Bob Comer <MS-MVP Virtual PC 2004 for Windows>
>>
>>
>>
>> "David Matson" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>> news:(email address - cut out)...

> I must have seen academic discounted software then. Sorry!
>
> But to put things into perspective, that's a bit more than 2 full Pro
> copies and it comes with VPC, once again, if I recall correctly, and
> cheaper than a new computer

> Jonathan had the price wrong, but the right subscription named. As you
> noted, you need the MSDN OS subscription.
>
> The $700 is estimated retail. You can find it cheaper. Just be careful,
> if the price seems too good to be true, it is.
>
> Scott
>
> David Matson wrote:
>
>> $700

> "Carlo Paccanoni" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
> > Again
> >
> > I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> > for
> > the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> > I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> > then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> > I continue testing this way.
> > Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
> >
> > I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> > applications.
> > thankyou all
>
> This depends on the Backup media.
> I by backup you just take a copy of the 2 Virtual PC files (that effectively
> make up a Virtual PC) and place these on a network drive or another hard
> disk - that Virtual PC is sill capable of being executed - like you have
> made a duplicate of a physical PC and put it in another room but powered
> off. This requires a license
> If the backup is of the Virtual PC files or a real backup of the virtual PC
> (just as if you were backing up a real PC) to a media such as tape that does
> not allow immediate execution of the Virtual PC then this is a "true" backup
> and as such no license is required. However once restored to an executable
> medium such as disk this does require a license.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Brannigan [Microsoft]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights
>
> Please note I cannot respond to e-mailed questions, please use these
> newsgroups
>
> "Carlo Paccanoni" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in
> message news:(email address - cut out)...
> > Again
> >
> > I install VPC on an licensed XP System. I buy a second reatil XP license
> > for
> > the VM. I install the XP on a VM.
> > I backup the VM and make some tests on the newly installed VM.
> > then I burn the created VM to restore the backup.
> > I continue testing this way.
> > Do I need only two licenses or infinites ones??
> >
> > I post this question because I have to make installation tests for my
> > applications.
> > thankyou all
>
>
>