>I know that in order to run the VPC2007 application, you have to have either
>WinXP Professional or higher, or Vista Business or higher.
>
>What I'm wondering is, what version(s) of Vista will run in a Virtual Machine?
>
>For example can I run the VPC2007 application on WinXP Professional, and
>create a Virtual Machine using Vista Home Basic?
>
>Thanks

>I know that in order to run the VPC2007 application, you have to have
>either
> WinXP Professional or higher, or Vista Business or higher.
>
> What I'm wondering is, what version(s) of Vista will run in a Virtual
> Machine?
>
> For example can I run the VPC2007 application on WinXP Professional, and
> create a Virtual Machine using Vista Home Basic?
>
> Thanks

> Vista Home's EULA doesn't allow for running it in a VM, only Business,
> Enterprise, and Ultimate.
>
> --
> Bob Comer <Microsoft MVP Windows - Virtual Machine>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:18:02 -0700, MS Questions
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>I know that in order to run the VPC2007 application, you have to have
>>either
>>WinXP Professional or higher, or Vista Business or higher.
>>
>>What I'm wondering is, what version(s) of Vista will run in a Virtual
>>Machine?
>>
>>For example can I run the VPC2007 application on WinXP Professional, and
>>create a Virtual Machine using Vista Home Basic?
>>
>>Thanks

>"Robert Comer" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
>news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>> Vista Home's EULA doesn't allow for running it in a VM
>
>Unless you have an MSDN license...
>

>Does that extend to retail versions? The way I read it, you cannot
>use -the- Vista (version) that -is- installed on hardware, under
>virtualization or emulation on that machine. This would be 2+ copies
>running, while only licensed for one

> Vista Home's EULA doesn't allow for running it in a VM

> "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>> Does that extend to retail versions?
>
> Yes.
>
>> The way I read it
>
> It's fairly unambiguous:
> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_d16c019b-fa71-4fc9-a51d-a0621bddb153.pdf
>
> Go to page 11 - point 4...
>

> Supposedly so, but I'm not a lawyer.
>
> --
> Bob Comer
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 03:40:28 -0400, "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]"
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Does that extend to retail versions? The way I read it, you cannot
>>use -the- Vista (version) that -is- installed on hardware, under
>>virtualization or emulation on that machine. This would be 2+ copies
>>running, while only licensed for one

> "Jonathan Maltz [MS-MVP]" <(email address - cut out)> wrote in message
> news:(email address - cut out)...
>
>> Does that extend to retail versions?
>
> Yes.
>
>> The way I read it
>
> It's fairly unambiguous:
> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Home%20Premium_English_d16c019b-fa71-4fc9-a51d-a0621bddb153.pdf
>
> Go to page 11 - point 4...
>

> Does that extend to retail versions?
> The way I read it

>Neither am I, that's why I asked :-)
>
>It's an interesting choice to license it this way

>Page 11, point 4 for Vista Home Basic: « USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION
>TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device
>within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. »
>
>It's seems fairly unambiguous to me that this sentence means that you cannot
>install it on a virtual machine if it has already been installed on a
>physical machine; even if the VM is to be run on the same physical machine
>as the host. Otherwise, they wouldn't make any mention of a "licensed
>device".
>
>There is nothing in this document that prohibit the installation of Vista
>Home in a VM if it's a brand new copy. However, if you do so, this VM
>become the licensed device and you don't have any longer the right to
>install it on another VM or on a physical machine.
>
>This is contrast with the Ultimate edition of Vista, where it seems that you
>can install an unlimited number of guests if the host is running it:
>
>Page 13, point 6 for Vista Ultimate: « USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES.
>You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual
>(or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. »

>A VM is also a licensed device... (and a virtual hardware system)
>
> --
> Bob Comer <Microsoft MVP Windows - Virtual Machine>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 11:56:10 -0400, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei
> ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
>
>>Page 11, point 4 for Vista Home Basic: « USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION
>>TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed
>>device
>>within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. »
>>
>>It's seems fairly unambiguous to me that this sentence means that you
>>cannot
>>install it on a virtual machine if it has already been installed on a
>>physical machine; even if the VM is to be run on the same physical machine
>>as the host. Otherwise, they wouldn't make any mention of a "licensed
>>device".
>>
>>There is nothing in this document that prohibit the installation of Vista
>>Home in a VM if it's a brand new copy. However, if you do so, this VM
>>become the licensed device and you don't have any longer the right to
>>install it on another VM or on a physical machine.
>>
>>This is contrast with the Ultimate edition of Vista, where it seems that
>>you
>>can install an unlimited number of guests if the host is running it:
>>
>>Page 13, point 6 for Vista Ultimate: « USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION
>>TECHNOLOGIES.
>>You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual
>>(or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. »

>extension to this scheme. If you buy the Home Edition and install it on a
>physical machine, you no longer have to right to install it on a VM without
>buying another copy (and vice versa).
>With the Ultimate Edition, once installed on a physical machine, you can
>also install it on an unlimited number of VM to be run as guests on the same
>physical machine.
>Yes, a VM is also a licensed device. Furthermore, with Win2003 R2 and the
>Data Center Edition, we already know that when these OS are installed on a
>physical device, we automatically get four or an unlimited number of
>supplemental licenses (in the case of the Data Center edition) to be
>installed/used with VMs when these VM will be run with Win2003 R2 or the
>Data Center Edition as the host.
>
>In the case of Vista, the aforementionned document seem to be the logical
>extension to this scheme. If you buy the Home Edition and install it on a
>physical machine, you no longer have to right to install it on a VM without
>buying another copy (and vice versa).
>
>With the Ultimate Edition, once installed on a physical machine, you can
>also install it on an unlimited number of VM to be run as guests on the same
>physical machine. (I don't know what happens exactly in the case of a dual-
>or multi-boot with another OS or when the copy of Vista is first installed
>on a VM before beeing installed on a physical machine but I suppose that in
>both cases, you will lose this advantage for the other OSs (in the case of a
>multi-boot) or for the right to install it on a physical machine in the
>second case.)

> >In the case of Vista, the aforementionned document seem to be the logical
>>extension to this scheme. If you buy the Home Edition and install it on a
>>physical machine, you no longer have to right to install it on a VM
>>without
>>buying another copy (and vice versa).
>
> It doesn't seem it matches that argument to me, but like I said, I'm
> not a lawyer.
>
>>With the Ultimate Edition, once installed on a physical machine, you can
>>also install it on an unlimited number of VM to be run as guests on the
>>same
>>physical machine.
>
> I don't really even want to get into this one, I don't think that's
> Microsoft's intention, otherwise they'd write it more like the Vista
> Enterprise and 4 concurrent VM's. But like I said, I'm no lawyer.
> What we really need is clarification from Microsoft Legal.
>
> --
> Bob Comer <Microsoft MVP Windows - Virtual Machine>
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 14:01:45 -0400, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei
> ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
>
>>Yes, a VM is also a licensed device. Furthermore, with Win2003 R2 and the
>>Data Center Edition, we already know that when these OS are installed on a
>>physical device, we automatically get four or an unlimited number of
>>supplemental licenses (in the case of the Data Center edition) to be
>>installed/used with VMs when these VM will be run with Win2003 R2 or the
>>Data Center Edition as the host.
>>
>>In the case of Vista, the aforementionned document seem to be the logical
>>extension to this scheme. If you buy the Home Edition and install it on a
>>physical machine, you no longer have to right to install it on a VM
>>without
>>buying another copy (and vice versa).
>>
>>With the Ultimate Edition, once installed on a physical machine, you can
>>also install it on an unlimited number of VM to be run as guests on the
>>same
>>physical machine. (I don't know what happens exactly in the case of a
>>dual-
>>or multi-boot with another OS or when the copy of Vista is first installed
>>on a VM before beeing installed on a physical machine but I suppose that
>>in
>>both cases, you will lose this advantage for the other OSs (in the case of
>>a
>>multi-boot) or for the right to install it on a physical machine in the
>>second case.)

>I know that in order to run the VPC2007 application, you have to have
>either
> WinXP Professional or higher, or Vista Business or higher.
>
> What I'm wondering is, what version(s) of Vista will run in a Virtual
> Machine?
>
> For example can I run the VPC2007 application on WinXP Professional, and
> create a Virtual Machine using Vista Home Basic?
>
> Thanks

> I know that in order to run the VPC2007 application, you have to have either
> WinXP Professional or higher, or Vista Business or higher.
>
> What I'm wondering is, what version(s) of Vista will run in a Virtual Machine?

>Thanks everyone for this interesting discussion.
>
>Just to clarify, I want to buy a boxed Vista Home Basic package, install it
>once in a VM, authorize it, and use it normally.
>
>My reading of the EULA is that Microsoft's intent is to ban any use of Home
>Basic or Home Premium in a VM (possibly on a flimsy argument about
>virtualization-level malware -- see clauses on not being allowed to run DRM
>in an Ultimate VM). But the language is not at all clear -- it depends on the
>past tense of the word "installed".
>
>There's another logical problem with the EULA -- it technically bans you
>from having an Ultimate VM on the same disk partition as a host Ultimate,
>even with two licenses, but nevermind...
>
>But I'm wondering if there is a chart/list somewhere for VPC 2007 that lists
>all the different types of OS's that you can run in it -- it would be
>interesting to see if Home Basic and Premium are specifically excluded.
>
>Also does anyone have a link for the Vista Business EULA?
>
>And do you think there's anyone authoritative at Microsoft we could get a
>definitive answer from on this question?

> >Also does anyone have a link for the Vista Business EULA?
> Google does:
> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Business_English_e59f6893-6b14-4262-964c-993ed16d138a.pdf
> MS has an entire department devoted to licensing.

> Here's the chart I was looking for (sort of ) -- argues ex silentio:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/overview.mspx
>
> Click "Product Specifications" in the left nav.

>« Unlimited VMs if Vista Ultimate is your host"... I don't think you'll find
>any authoritative source that will agree with that. Vista Enterprise only
>allows 4 VMs per license. »
>
>The cost of MSDN Operating System for one year is $699 or $300 more than the
>cost of a single copy of Vista Ultimate. It's nearly double the price,
>however, you got for this not only a lot of licenses for Vista Ultimate and
>the other versions of Vista as well (Home, Home Premium, etc.) but also of
>all other operating systems as well (WinXP, Win2K, Longhorn Beta (RTM if
>it's out while your subscription is still valid, etc.)
>
>Of course, these licences are for development, testing, etc. but when you
>have already a copy of Vista running on your physical machine, for what else
>purpose would you want to have a copy of Vista running in a VM if it's not
>for development, testing, etc.?
>
>This idea might look ridiculous to you but to me, it looks well in line with
>the price of each option.

> On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:00:01 -0700, MS Questions
> <(email address - cut out)> wrote:
>
>>Thanks everyone for this interesting discussion.
>>
>>Just to clarify, I want to buy a boxed Vista Home Basic package, install
>>it
>>once in a VM, authorize it, and use it normally.
>>
>>My reading of the EULA is that Microsoft's intent is to ban any use of
>>Home
>>Basic or Home Premium in a VM (possibly on a flimsy argument about
>>virtualization-level malware -- see clauses on not being allowed to run
>>DRM
>>in an Ultimate VM). But the language is not at all clear -- it depends on
>>the
>>past tense of the word "installed".
>
> If you install a Windows OS in a VM, it is licensed to that device,
> it's really simple. In terms of licensing, MS has stated that a VM is
> no different than a physical PC.
>
>>
>>There's another logical problem with the EULA -- it technically bans you
>>from having an Ultimate VM on the same disk partition as a host Ultimate,
>>even with two licenses, but nevermind...
>>
>>But I'm wondering if there is a chart/list somewhere for VPC 2007 that
>>lists
>>all the different types of OS's that you can run in it -- it would be
>>interesting to see if Home Basic and Premium are specifically excluded.
>>
>>Also does anyone have a link for the Vista Business EULA?
> Google does:
> http://download.microsoft.com/documents/useterms/Windows%20Vista_Business_English_e59f6893-6b14-4262-964c-993ed16d138a.pdf
>
>
>>
>>And do you think there's anyone authoritative at Microsoft we could get a
>>definitive answer from on this question?
>
> Of course there is. MS has an entire department devoted to licensing.
> Peer newsgroups are not the right place to get licensing guidance.
> Just look at the previous posts in this thread and each poster's
> interpretation of the license.
>
> Unlimited VMs if Vista Ultimate is your host"... I don't think you'll
> find any authoritative source that will agree with that. Vista
> Enterprise only allows 4 VMs per license.
>
> ----------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/

> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 02:13:17 -0400, "Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvain aei
> ca (fill the blanks, no spam please)> wrote:
>
>>« Unlimited VMs if Vista Ultimate is your host"... I don't think you'll
>>find
>>any authoritative source that will agree with that. Vista Enterprise only
>>allows 4 VMs per license. »
>>
>>The cost of MSDN Operating System for one year is $699 or $300 more than
>>the
>>cost of a single copy of Vista Ultimate. It's nearly double the price,
>>however, you got for this not only a lot of licenses for Vista Ultimate
>>and
>>the other versions of Vista as well (Home, Home Premium, etc.) but also
>>of
>>all other operating systems as well (WinXP, Win2K, Longhorn Beta (RTM if
>>it's out while your subscription is still valid, etc.)
>>
>>Of course, these licences are for development, testing, etc. but when you
>>have already a copy of Vista running on your physical machine, for what
>>else
>>purpose would you want to have a copy of Vista running in a VM if it's not
>>for development, testing, etc.?
>>
>>This idea might look ridiculous to you but to me, it looks well in line
>>with
>>the price of each option.
>
> I've never stated MSDN is a ridiculous solution.
>
> I don't see any connection between what you initially quoted regarding
> (mis)interpretations of Vista Ultimate's EULA and an MSDN
> subscription.
>
> ----------- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Cheers,
> Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
> http://vpc.essjae.com/