Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use

TechWeb ^ | October 12, 2006 (1:53 PM EDT) | Gregg Keizer

[Amerigomag]

Changing any three or more triggers reactivation

I don't think this is a concern in a virtual environment.

Once the OS is loaded, there is no reinstalling. One copy of the newly installed virtual machine can be duplicated endlessly, if the originally provisioned storage space is adequate.

Virtual machines can be network transfered to the care of virtual servers on a variety of popular hosts. Running a virtual XP machine on a Linux host is an excellent combination for the home user.

Hardware is virtual; a hardware emulation layer supplied by VMware. As long as the server's configuration isn't changed, the hardware signature remains the same.

Running a virtual machine on an open source host is thrifty. No cost for the host system, no cost for the virtual server and no cost for additional, Microsoft licenses.

Running a virtual machine on an open source host is relatively painless, even for Microsoft users. Both installation of the host distribution and the virtual server is menu driven and there are many OS specific how-tos available on the web. XP doesn't phone home at installation and security upgrades aren't necessary since this vulnerable software is behind several layers of obfuscation on a simple home network. If the OS is corrupted, the machine is simply deleted and a duplicate copy transfered from memory.

There are only three inconveniences that I've encountered using this arrangement. Processing speed in the virtual environment is somewhat reduced. Using LTP1 communication for older imaging devices requires disabling a default module at host start up. Transferring data between the virtual machine and the host requires a NAS.

For these small inconveniences I gain relatively secure surfing on the host, no need to constantly patch Microsoft and the availability of XP to play with the latest, fad applications or peripheral specific drivers as they become available.

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't think this is a concern in a virtual environment.

It is when your Vista Home Edition states that you can't use it in a VM.

Anyway, I love VMs too. I use one at home so the wife can do all the registry-destroying gaming she wants, and at work with a large virtualized network.

[Constantine XIII]

Stop the internet, we have a winner. :)

[VeniVidiVici]

Does anybody on this thread (really) use XP Home?

If so, why not run that on a virtual machine in Vista?

I think most folks who will run Vista Home Basic and Premium are not going to be the types to install/reinstall regularly.

It may be Joe Blow who upgrades his computer once during its lifespan that needs to transfer the license to another device.

[Constantine XIII]

Which one gets to be Caesar? :)

[theFIRMbss]

>But if Apple and Sun merge and Google buys them, that triumvirate would be a global presence...
>>Which one gets to be Caesar?

"Ides of March? I ain't afraid of no Ides of March! Hey, I am Steve Jobs!"

[theFIRMbss]

>Many, if not most, of the problems with Windows crashes are hardware related

My experience
has been that Windows problems
are almost always

caused by tech-geek types
from the mini/mainframe worlds
forced onto desktops

to get a job and
they hate PCs, hate Windows,
think they know it all,

and do crappy jobs
installing/configuring
because they don't care.

[Crusher138]

I have been an Mac hater from early on. I didn't like their proprietary hardware. I didn't like the fact that they lured people in with "ease of use", only to hit them with either "we don't offer that software" or "we have that software, but it cost twice as much as similar DOS/Windows software." To make matters worse, the hardware was expensive for what it was.

Windows won me over with cheap, plentiful hardware, good business apps, and cool games. Now that Apple is taking away the hardware objections, OpenOffice works on everything, and my game machines handle 90% of the gaming I do, why should I continue to put up with Microsoft's crap?