Virtual PC for Vista Home Premium?
Abe
it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
Thanks!
Barry Margolin
Abe <A...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
Microsoft announced a while ago that Vista isn't permitted to be used in
any virtual environment. So it can't be used with Virtual PC, VMWare,
or Parallels Desktop. I'm not sure why they have this policy, but you
have to get a real PC to run it (maybe their PC vendor partners pushed
them for this).
You could get an Intel Mac and use Bootcamp, I suspect. This boots the
computer into Windows, rather than using virtualization, so it doesn't
violate MS's policy.
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
Helpful Harry
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> In article <07F0CF42-16E4-4EDE...@microsoft.com>,
> Abe <A...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> > anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
>
> Microsoft announced a while ago that Vista isn't permitted to be used in
> any virtual environment. So it can't be used with Virtual PC, VMWare,
> or Parallels Desktop. I'm not sure why they have this policy, but you
> have to get a real PC to run it (maybe their PC vendor partners pushed
> them for this).
>
> You could get an Intel Mac and use Bootcamp, I suspect. This boots the
> computer into Windows, rather than using virtualization, so it doesn't
> violate MS's policy.
You can legally use SOME versions of Vista (the more expensive ones)
under emulation / virtualisation, but I doubt you'd want to try Vista
under Virtual PC's emulation anyway - it's likely to be slow.
Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
Colin Barnhorst
First, all editions of Vista will run in a virtualized environment. I have
run both Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium using VPC 2007 on a MacBook
Pro (Windows partition).
Second, the EULA for the Home editions of Vista forbid use in a virtualized
environment but the editions DO RUN. An exception to this restriction is
for MSDN subscribers; the EULA's for MSDN copies of Vista Home Basic and
Premium do permit running them in a virtualized environment (how else can a
developer use VPC and Virtual Server to test against these editions?).
Third, Microsoft only gives product support for the business editions of
Vista (Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate) when run in a virtualized
environment, but that does not mean that unsupported editions don't run.
Again, they DO. They just aren't supported.
Fourth, the memory restrictions and performance issues render Vista in VPC7
problematic. However, Intel Mac users should have no such problems running
Vista under Parrallels on OS/X.
Finally, Intel Mac users who leverage Boot Camp can run all editions of
Vista using VPC 2007, Virtual Server 2005 R2, Parrallels, or VMWare just as
any Windows only user can. I run Vista Ultimate x86 under VPC 2007 and
Vista Ultimate x64 under VMWare 6 beta on my MacBook Pro with no complaints
about performance. I have tested all editions of Vista on my MacBook Pro
with complete success.
One of the biggest misunderstandings is about the terms "supported" and
"runs." When used by Microsoft, "supported" merely means that the product
is given Microsoft Product Support Services assistance. "Runs" is an
entirely different matter. Many many products are not supported in certain
scenarios but run in them just fine. For example, when installing VPC 2007,
XP Home users get a message that VPC 2007 is not supported on their host OS.
However, VPC 2007 will then install and will run without issues. The
message just means that the user cannot count on help from MS with problems
they might run into. The same thing happens when Vista Home Basic and Vista
Home Premium users install VPC 2007 on their machines. VPC will run just
fine for them too but they cannot call up Product Support Services for help
if they run into problems. All of these concepts apply to VPC7 on a Power
PC Mac as well.
Colin Barnhorst - Microsoft MVP for Virtual Machine
"Abe" <A...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:07F0CF42-16E4-4EDE...@microsoft.com...
Mac G
Barry Margolin <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Microsoft announced a while ago that Vista isn't permitted to be used in
> any virtual environment. So it can't be used with Virtual PC, VMWare,
> or Parallels Desktop. I'm not sure why they have this policy, but you
> have to get a real PC to run it (maybe their PC vendor partners pushed
> them for this).
$$$$s
Colin Barnhorst
editions from the Business editions for pricing purposes. All of the
decisions to include and exclude features between editions are made by
Marketing, not by the developers. Every developer would love to see the
feature he has worked on be available to all users.
None of this is new and it is a practice by no means isolated to Microsoft
or even the computing industry. Adobe is another practicioner of this black
art.
"Mac G" <toma...@PCheaven.net> wrote in message
news:tomacguy-A6E9A0...@news.telus.net...
Helpful Harry
Barnhorst" <colinb...@msn.com> wrote:
> There is a lot of misinformation here. I hope the following helps.
>
> First, all editions of Vista will run in a virtualized environment. I have
> run both Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium using VPC 2007 on a MacBook
> Pro (Windows partition).
<snip>
It's simply the same as re-using the copy of Windows from Virtual PC
with Parallels ... it can be done, but the licensing aggreement that
you leaglly aggree to by installing the product does not allowed to do
it, and anyone that ignores those rules is being a greedy, selfish
moron.
Colin Barnhorst
what is supported. There is a ton of misinformation on that topic. There
are a lot of statements that simply are not true.
Licensing is yet another topic and is equally misunderstood. An example of
that is the difference between licensing virtual machines when running a
retail copy of Vista versus a volume license or Software Assurance copy. In
the latter case the EULA for Vista Enterprise and Ultimate permit the
licensing of four virtualized copies of Windows and the virtualization
software used does not even have to be Microsoft's. Just an example of how
convoluted all this can be.
"Helpful Harry" <helpfu...@nom.de.plume.com> wrote in message
news:200420070859349248%helpfu...@nom.de.plume.com...
Helpful Harry
Barnhorst" <colinb...@msn.com> wrote:
> "Helpful Harry" <helpfu...@nom.de.plume.com> wrote in message
> news:200420070859349248%helpfu...@nom.de.plume.com...
> > In article <C394692A-B603-4B19...@microsoft.com>, "Colin
> > Barnhorst" <colinb...@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> There is a lot of misinformation here. I hope the following helps.
> >>
> >> First, all editions of Vista will run in a virtualized environment. I
> >> have
> >> run both Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium using VPC 2007 on a
> >> MacBook
> >> Pro (Windows partition).
> > <snip>
> >
> > It's simply the same as re-using the copy of Windows from Virtual PC
> > with Parallels ... it can be done, but the licensing aggreement that
> > you leaglly aggree to by installing the product does not allowed to do
> > it, and anyone that ignores those rules is being a greedy, selfish
> > moron.
>
> what is supported. There is a ton of misinformation on that topic. There
> are a lot of statements that simply are not true.
I don't know that anyone has said it won't run at all (I do vaguely
recall someone once syaing that Virtual PC's emulated computer didn't
meet the hardware requirements), only that you not allowed to run
certain versions under Virtual PC and that it probably runs slowly
under Virtual PC.
What is "supported" or not is irrelevant in this topic ... no company I
know of supports illegally used software.
> Licensing is yet another topic and is equally misunderstood. An example of
> that is the difference between licensing virtual machines when running a
> retail copy of Vista versus a volume license or Software Assurance copy. In
> the latter case the EULA for Vista Enterprise and Ultimate permit the
> licensing of four virtualized copies of Windows and the virtualization
> software used does not even have to be Microsoft's. Just an example of how
> convoluted all this can be.
Microsoft having so many different versions of their operating system
is crazy enough ... although rumours are saying the next Mac OS X will
have a pile of different ones too, but I'm guessing that's just some
idiot misreporting the two existing versions (Server and User) plus the
modified version supposedly running on the iPhone.
Almost nobody actually reads those legalese agreements and even fewer
actually understand them.
ninjadmin
I read everyone's replies which don't really answer your question.
I'm hoping to figure this out too, since I'm also using Windows Vista
Premium and want to use Ubuntu in a virtual PC machine setup.
Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 works if you have Vista Enterprise, Business, and
Ultimate. You can run Premium, but can not use Premium with the VPC 2007.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/virtualpc/overview.mspx
I considered upgrading to Ultimate, but I would rather find a more better
option.
Colin Barnhorst
VPC 2007 runs fine on Vista Home Premium (as the host) but is not
"supported" (no tech support from Microsoft Product Support Services). You
will get an advisory that the host system is not supported at the time you
install. This is not an error message, just an advisory. Click past the
message to install. That has nothing to do with "running."
Vista Home Premium runs fine (as a guest) in VPC 2007 but licensing
restricts the use of VHP severely. So far as I know, MSDN subscribers may
run Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium as guests in a testing and
development environment but consumers are not licensed to use either product
under VPC at all. Again, that has nothing to do with "running."
It makes no difference whether your host is VHP, Business, or Ultimate as
far as VPC 2007 running is concerned, but if you encounter technical issues
you can get help from MS for Business or Ultimate but you are on your own
with VHP.
This is not all that complicated, folks.
"ninjadmin" <ninj...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:352C2952-0C9D-46D1...@microsoft.com...
Colin Barnhorst
its use with consumer editions of Windows is not supported. Support is only
available for its use with business editions of Windows, host and guest.
And remember, "supported" has nothing to do with "runs."
"Colin Barnhorst" <colinb...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:FD804B88-619C-4F91...@microsoft.com...
ninjadmin
I'll try it out.
Helpful Harry
Barnhorst" <colinb...@msn.com> wrote:
> Another way of thinking of this is that VPC 2007 is a business product and
> its use with consumer editions of Windows is not supported. Support is only
> available for its use with business editions of Windows, host and guest.
> And remember, "supported" has nothing to do with "runs."
And neither has anything to do with the FACT that it's ILLEGAL to run
the "Home" versions of Vista under emulation / virtualisation, and that
includes Virtual PC, Parallels Desktop and VMWare. So stop telling
people they can. :o\
citiz...@gmail.com
Actually Vista Home and Premium licenses DO NOT disallow running them
inside a VM. What they do prohibit is running a SECOND COPY in a VM,
if that license is already installed on a non-virtual machine (the
"licensed device" in the EULA).
GOOD LUCK
On May 12, 9:51 am, "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarha...@msn.com> wrote:
(...)
Paul Power
>
> - Show quoted text -
The EXACT quote from the EULA for both the Home Basic and Premium
versions states:
"You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within
a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system."
It is very SIMPLE and very CLEAR. You are NOT permitted to use it.
PERIOD!!
Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
Whether it will or will not work is irrelevant. It is NOT supported
because it is ILLEGAL! Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant.
Why is this so HARD to understand??????
citiz...@gmail.com
Unfortunately, something that appears to be simple and clear is
interpreted in different ways, depending on the reader.)
I think the key qualifying words are "the software installed on the
licensed device". Here are a couple of links I've seen...
particularly the interpretation by Ed Bott:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157
http://www.jepstone.net/blog/2007/02/12/does-the-vista-eula-really-prohibit-virtualization/
Of course, some interpret it differently, so some clarification from
Microsoft would certainly be helpful:
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=26242&messageID=492893&start=-1
http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2007/01/vista-is-here-so-what-does-it-mean-for.html
Perhaps that last link is the most authorative? The VM companies have
much to gain by dispelling this confusion. ANYWAY, it's probably wise
to be conservative in the interpretation, like the previous poster.
Paul Power
> (Touchy subject? I'm sorry that you took offense; none is intended!
> Unfortunately, something that appears to be simple and clear is
> interpreted in different ways, depending on the reader.)
>
> I think the key qualifying words are "the software installed on the
> licensed device". Here are a couple of links I've seen...
> particularly the interpretation by Ed Bott:
> http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157
>
> Of course, some interpret it differently, so some clarification from
> Microsoft would certainly be helpful:
> http://parallelsvirtualization.blogspot.com/2007/01/vista-is-here-so-...
>
> Perhaps that last link is the most authorative? The VM companies have
> much to gain by dispelling this confusion. ANYWAY, it's probably wise
> to be conservative in the interpretation, like the previous poster.
>
>
>
> > The EXACT quote from the EULA for both the Home Basic and Premium
> > versions states:
>
> > "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within
>
> - Show quoted text -
For every post on this issue, you will get a different response with a
different interpretation. Take a look at it from the logical point of
view:
Does M$ want you to use their product in a 'foreign' environment?
Parallels desktop would be a foreign environment to Microsoft.
Apparently not is the answer. Why? M$ will not provide support for ANY
version of Windows in Parallels. What about BootCamp? Still in beta
development and no support provided by Apple or Microsoft. I also
believe that there will probably be no support for Windows when
BootCamp comes out of beta as there is a breakdown in communication
between the two companies (over proprietary rights, I believe).
Anyway, back to virtualization and emulation environments. The
interpretation of 're-use' of the product, as in the case of your
first link is wrong. In another part of the EULA, it spectfically
states that you may install the product on 1 machine only. In
addition, you may transfer the license to another machine ONE TIME
ONLY. What does that mean? You can go out and buy Vista and install it
on your PC. Six months from now, you get a new PC without an OS. You
can transfer Vista to that machine. That's it. Any future PCs will
require another license. BIG difference between this EULA and that of
earlier Windows versions.
Again, there will be many interpretations by people who wish to
'adapt' the EULA to their own requirements. But that doesn't make it
legal or proper. Perhaps you might want to consult a lawyer for help.
Anyway, the EULA makes for some very interesting reading.
citiz...@gmail.com
Richard Cardona
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070624-microsofts-anti-virtualization-stance-forget-drm-think-apple.html
There's statement that is NOT properly backed up in the article:
"Now keep in mind that Apple is, technically, an OEM."
In order for Apple to be an OEM of Windows they would have to have an
agreement with Microsoft to be a distributor. I don't know for certain
but if I had to guess, this would not be one of the items in Steve's
back pocket-- unless there is some arcane clause of their 1998 agreement.
In fact, no virtualization vendor is an OEM: not SWsoft-Parallels, not
VMware, not XenSource of VirtualIron. I believe back in the day,
Connectix was but then Microsoft bough them.
The point of the statement above is Ars's supposition:
"Now imagine Apple running adverts on the TV that say: with a Mac, you
can get the best of both worlds by adding Windows Vista to your Mac for
$99. "Get a Mac, then add a PC for $99!""
This is wild speculation. And why would it take Vista for Apple to
enable this? They could done this with XP on the introduction of Boot
Camp. Instead, Apple says we don't do Windows - go buy your own copy.
We may never know the "truth" but I would say keep guessing:
1. DRM
2. Apple
3. ??
Aly
Go to www.moka5.com and install the moka5 engine and then install your vista OS within it and it should run fine, slow but fine.
Posted via http://www.VirtualServerFaq.com - Brought to you by Business Information Technology Shop - http://www.bitshop.com
Colin Barnhorst
information? Are you misreading "not supported on VHP" to mean "does not
run"? Supported has nothing to do with running. Not supported just means
that VPC 2007 is not eligible for MS phone and email support when run on
Vista Home Basic or Vista Home Premium. You can install and run VPC 2007 on
your machine.
btw, this is a VPC for Mac newsgroup. You have posted to the wrong ng. You
should post to microsoft.public.virtualpc instead.
"Aly" <remo...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:a5fcdb9d-3a2a-43ab...@text.giganews.com...
Aly
Outside Box
Since we all have a hard time on Vista Home Premium, so its time to make a move to install another Vista version in your laptop/dekstop, dual windows so that, enable us to use VPC2007, VHomePremium is quite new as Vista overall is not universal windows version such XP. Even myself having a hard time with Linux on F80s.
Steve Jain
This is the VPC-Mac newsgroup, for VPC 2007 you should use the
microsoft.public.virtualpc group.
That said, VPC 2007 does run on Vista Home Premium. However, t is not
a supported platform by Microsoft.
--
Cheers,
Steve Jain, Virtual Machine MVP
http://vpc.essjae.com/
I do not work for Microsoft.
Spam away
> > Hi all,
> >
> > it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> > anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
> >
> > Thanks!
Parallels supports Vista on the Mac PC.
Christine
> Hi all,
>
> it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
>
> Thanks!
VMware
Norman Robson
> Hi all,
>
> it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
>
> Thanks!
Can I run Vista Home Premium or business OEM as a virtual machine on my IMac using parallels. If so what are the restrictios
Norman Robson
MarkM
> Hi all,
>
> it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
>
> Thanks!
So to clerify If im hosting VPC on my 64 bit home premium machine i can emulate another vista home premium machine using my vista product key? I know there may be errors like previously stated from other posts. I'm not "needing" VPC but it would be a very nice tool to be able to use for random purposes. Thank you for your time.
~Mark
Steve Jain [MVP]
wrote:
Not legally. Your Vista license is for 1 installation, you can't use
it on your physical computer and a VM.
Future inquiries regarding VPC for Windows should go to
microsoft.public.virtualpc
This group is specific for the Mac version of VPC.
Laurie
"Abe" wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> it looks like virtual pc for vista home premium is not available. Does
> anyone have any alternatives to run virtual pc's on my machine?
>
> Thanks!
Had the same problem but have just installed' Virtual Box' from Sun micro
systems. It works well. Hopefully MS will release a system that is compatible
with all their platforms .
Fred Horvat
it is not supported but it will install and run. Unless MS recently
starting having the Install abort...
On 5/18/09 9:04 AM, in article
C52666D9-327A-45A0...@microsoft.com, "Laurie"