Among Microsoft's new restrictions in the Windows Vista End User License Agreement (EULA) is that neither Windows Vista Home Basic nor Windows Vista Home Premium may be run in a Virtual Machine. Like Windows Rootkits (see Combat the Threat of Rootkits and Secure Hypervisor Hype: Myths, Realities and Recommendations), there is a risk that a VM Rootkits gets installed unbeknownst to the consumer. Microsoft says that consumers don’t understand the risks of running virtual machines, and they only want enterprises that understand the risks running Vista on a VM. So Microsoft removes user choice in the name of security.

But this is a license restriction, not a technical one. So a consumer that wants to run Windows Vista under Parallels or VMWare on his or her Mac can purchase a Home SKU and install it on a VM in violation of the EULA (not that most of them will know it; who really reads the EULA?). The other option is to pay Microsoft $300 for Windows Vista Business or $399 for Windows Ultimate, instead of $200 for Home Basic or $239 for Home Premium. Does paying $60 or $100 more mean they understand the risks? We suppose that to Microsoft it does. Or maybe for the extra money, Microsoft just doesn't care as much.

Is Microsoft using a EULA no one reads to educate? Should they be? We don’t think so. What do you think?

Submit a Comment | Permalink

Both versions of Vista Home can be used in a VM. What you cannot do is use the same copy you have installed on your PC in a VM. You need an extra license for the VM install. Vista Ultimate does allow you to use the same copy you have installed on your PC in a VM.

The relevant sections of the license are:

---------------

Vista Home Basic and Home Premium

4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system

Vista Ultimate

6. 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. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption.

-----------------------

"Licensed device" means the physical PC on which you've installed the OS. If you have already installed the OS on a PC, only Ultimate allows you to use that same licensed copy with a VM. For Home Basic and Home Premium, you can either install on a VM only, or you can install on a PC and get an additional license for the VM.

Dear Anonymous (if that IS your real name),

This is an interesting way to interpret this, but it’s not what Microsoft intends. In no license is it legal to buy one copy of Windows and use it as both a guest and a host. That would require two licenses, no matter what SKU of Windows you buy (unless you purchase Software Assurance, which gives you the ability to use up to 5 copies on a single PC). Microsoft’s intent is that you can’t run Home in a VM and while you can run Ultimate in a VM, you can’t use various forms of DRM in the VM. Microsoft would say that installing and running the licenses the way you interpret them is illegal. Whether they would be able to prove or enforce it is another issue.

Regards,
Mike

Firstly, many in the blogsphere interpret this like Anonymous as being essentially about multiple concurrent instancing. As you say, that was probably not the intent, but the language is peculiar. To the extent that a contract stands, first and foremost, on a meeting of the minds, this and most of the EULA is deprecable.
Secondly, the notion of a "pure hardware" machine without software virtualization/emulation is anachronistic. I fondly remember setting front panel switches to load instructions for bootstrapping a DEC PDP-8, but all modern computers use software such as BIOS, microcode, etc. between the operating system and the physical device. A license restricted to machines that do not exist is vacuous.
Thirdly, the notion that users may not employ any system they see fit when running the program is simply unconscionable. It is as preposterous as if my local library stipulated that I could only read their books using the hardware of the naked eye, and forbade virtual imaging using eyeglasses.

Windows Vista is years over due, and far less in features than was predicted or promised years ago. Apple X 5 will be out in a few more weeks, and it will be years ahead of Windows. Anyone who needs to use VM can likely use XP Pro for several more years. I have serious doubts that the rush from 98 to XP will duplicate itself in a rush from XP to Vista. And with Mac hardware what it is now, why would anyone want a lame rip like Vista anyway?

I completely agree. ...Great blog!

I also agree this is great blog for windows vista. This post is really interesting and thanks for information

From the outset, I believed that it would be possible to install Vista on Microsoft's Virtual PC 2004**. My previous experience is that I have installed about 25 virtual machines before I installed Vista. I choose to install Virtual PC 2004 on Windows Server 2003, even though the setup says explicitly that this host operating system is not recommended. The reason that I mention these two facts is to give you confidence. I want to emphasise that while I am no great expert on Virtual PC, I still got Vista working. I would also like to report that installing the final release of Vista on Virtual PC is easier than the beta versions.
Yhis is really great Blog!