Parallels Desktop for Mac build 3036 Beta is available for download.
- Thread starter STim
- Start date
- Status
Are you CERTAIN about the XP license limitations?
Hi, Don
I don't have my XP license in front of me (and if I did I'd need to find my reading glasses to find the relavent fine print), but what I've read about Windows Vista includes lots of grumbling about the supposedly NEW requirement that one purchase essentially the most expensive license in order to run it on a virtual machine.
I'm still running Windows from Boot Camp only, and I'm trying to follow all the threads on this issue carefully (I've tried to christen it the "Boot Camp/Parallels Windows Reactivation Dance"). Some users have reported they've reached a reactivation limit toggling back and forth between hardware and virtual boot into XP; some have reported repetitive reactivation requests but no need to do anything other than click a link, and at least one user has reported being able to boot back and forth with only ONE initial request for Windows reactivation.
For my own edification, could you quote me the portion of a single-user XP license (either Home or Pro) that says I can't use Windows XP in both a virtual mode and real mode on the same machine? Does Microsoft enforce such draconian limits on users who use Virtual PC in its sole useful current incarnation (the one that runs on Windows boxes)?
I'm pretty certain the Parallels development team wouldn't have attempted to implement this much-requested feature unless they thought they could do it legally, and I'm also pretty certain they're savvy enough to realize the typical user with a Boot Camp partition will still need it AND their Parallels virtual machine, so there's no point in Boot Camp capture if it effectively kills access to the Boot Camp boot.
This is a BIG issue, and we need a clear statement from the development team regarding their plans as well as their understanding of the legal issues.
Thanks,
Jim Robertson
don montalvo said:
Hi, Don
I don't have my XP license in front of me (and if I did I'd need to find my reading glasses to find the relavent fine print), but what I've read about Windows Vista includes lots of grumbling about the supposedly NEW requirement that one purchase essentially the most expensive license in order to run it on a virtual machine.
I'm still running Windows from Boot Camp only, and I'm trying to follow all the threads on this issue carefully (I've tried to christen it the "Boot Camp/Parallels Windows Reactivation Dance"). Some users have reported they've reached a reactivation limit toggling back and forth between hardware and virtual boot into XP; some have reported repetitive reactivation requests but no need to do anything other than click a link, and at least one user has reported being able to boot back and forth with only ONE initial request for Windows reactivation.
For my own edification, could you quote me the portion of a single-user XP license (either Home or Pro) that says I can't use Windows XP in both a virtual mode and real mode on the same machine? Does Microsoft enforce such draconian limits on users who use Virtual PC in its sole useful current incarnation (the one that runs on Windows boxes)?
I'm pretty certain the Parallels development team wouldn't have attempted to implement this much-requested feature unless they thought they could do it legally, and I'm also pretty certain they're savvy enough to realize the typical user with a Boot Camp partition will still need it AND their Parallels virtual machine, so there's no point in Boot Camp capture if it effectively kills access to the Boot Camp boot.
This is a BIG issue, and we need a clear statement from the development team regarding their plans as well as their understanding of the legal issues.
Thanks,
Jim Robertson
don montalvo
Hunter
toddgarvin
Junior Member
CJConline said:
Chris,
Both of these options are available (mostly).
1) Go to your VM setup and click on the (+) sign at the bottom. You can then ad a new virtual HD by browsing to your Boot Camp partition. I currently use this to access my NTFS Vista drive from my WinXP VM. It the only way to R/W to NTFS on the Mac!!
)2) Dragging and dropping of files is easy between the VM and OS X. However, you are right, if you want actual file access without the copy, you need to make a Parallels shared folder.
Hope this helps,
Todd
re: the XP EULA
I'm no lawyer, but I had read the securityfocus column you've linked when it first came out, and it clearly bemoans Microsoft's goal of limiting virtualized use of Vista, not XP.
So, thus far, I don't see any evidence of the Parallels team encouraging "sponsored piracy" if they enable booting from Boot Camp or via Parallels - at least for now
Jim Robertson
I'm no lawyer, but I had read the securityfocus column you've linked when it first came out, and it clearly bemoans Microsoft's goal of limiting virtualized use of Vista, not XP.
So, thus far, I don't see any evidence of the Parallels team encouraging "sponsored piracy" if they enable booting from Boot Camp or via Parallels - at least for now
Jim Robertson
The tools mentioned in the first post are for supporting Parallels use of a Boot Camp partition. They do not replace the standard Parallels Tools that you get via the "Install Parallels Tools" menu item.Saxamaphone said:
Update your copy of Parallels Tools to get the new U.I. features.
The issue with VT-x support being disabled was fixed by Apple's latest firmware update for the Mac Pro. Apply that update and after it reboots and reports that the firmware was successfully updated, shutdown your machine. When you then turn it back on, VT-x should be enabled.stevko said:
don montalvo
Hunter
jamesrob said:I'm no lawyer, but I had read the securityfocus column you've linked when it first came out, and it clearly bemoans Microsoft's goal of limiting virtualized use of Vista, not XP.
So, thus far, I don't see any evidence of the Parallels team encouraging "sponsored piracy" if they enable booting from Boot Camp or via Parallels - at least for now
Jim Robertson
from the article:
> Windows Activation, introduced with Windows XP, insures that you don't
> install the same copy of Windows on more than one machine at a time.
the point i was making is that bootcamp and parallels (virtual machine) are two different machines. microsoft won't let you activate one copy on more than one machine. the ethernet id and video card info are two things i'm assuming are queried on windows launch...they're different, so activation breaks.
when i boot into parallels, i see an etnernet address of: 00-59-a3-c2-41-7a
when i boot into bootcamp, i see an ethernet address of 00:16:cb:89:3f:61
...windows sees this as well (along with video card info maybe?) and "breaks" activation. i'm not sure if parallels can do anything about this...if they can, kudos to them! if not, at least we know why the problem occurs. i personally don't have a reason to boot into bootcamp (i don't play games and everything i need windows for is do-able within parallels) but understand a lot of people do need to boot into either. i hope we get a solution for those who need it. i think microsoft would not like to see parallels team create a hack that breaks their anti-piracy policy.
don
Last edited:
In use by another Parallels Desktop error.
Love the new beta! However I had the following problem. When I exited ||s normally Friday, and then tried it this morning (Monday) I couldn't open my one configuration. When I launched ||s it prompted me with a list of configurations to select - there was only one, and when I attempted to open it I saw the message:
"in use by another Parallels Desktop"
I figured out that I could just delete the following lock file to get it working again:
~/Library/Parallels/<name of configuraiton>/.<name of configuration>.pvs.lock
Love the new beta! However I had the following problem. When I exited ||s normally Friday, and then tried it this morning (Monday) I couldn't open my one configuration. When I launched ||s it prompted me with a list of configurations to select - there was only one, and when I attempted to open it I saw the message:
"in use by another Parallels Desktop"
I figured out that I could just delete the following lock file to get it working again:
~/Library/Parallels/<name of configuraiton>/.<name of configuration>.pvs.lock
I have this same problem. I booted into Boot Camp and installed Parallels tools. When I try to start that VM under Parallels, the keyboard & mouse won't respond, even after restarting it several times. It gives me a choice of two hardware profiles & I tried both with the same results.
My regular, non-boot-camp VM works great. I love the coherency mode!
My regular, non-boot-camp VM works great. I love the coherency mode!
don montalvo said:
I just can't wait for the court case that will come over this when MS trys to limit XP. It is the same computer, same CPU, same motherboard, same diskdrive, same same same. Get my point.
On XP Microsoft is stuck and there is nothing they can do about it. They can't change the License Agrement after the fact and to do so would be a breach of conract.
On Vista they may have a leg to stand on because it's a new system with a new License Agrement.
Now all Parallels has to do is make the hardware look the same as it does under bootcamp and XP will then not report a hardware change. There is nothing illegal about doing this. As I said it IS the same computer!
Sooner or later MS will mostl likely give in as they have done it the past. It all depends on how much flack they are willing to take first.
don montalvo
Hunter
timon said:
...different machine address, different video card, etc. i think your point is valid, however, we're dealing with virtualization...xp is designed to break when virtualization presents a different machine address and video card. whether parallels crosses the line by spoofing both, well, that may be up to the microsoft lawyers to decide if it goes that way. consider linksys routers allow you to spoof a machine address...hmm...
don
Last edited:
How can it be a "beta" if it clearly doesn't work at all?
I am a Boot Camp user of Windows XP Pro on a MacBook Pro who has been waiting to use Parallels until it could coexist successfully with Boot Camp. I use my Windows partition for critical, business-related applications not available on my preferred Mac OS X platform. Boot Camp is solid, professionally developed and tested software that I am confident with. I would love to use a virtualized Windows on my Mac, but am not eager to get into the process of reauthorizing Windows, re-installing my Windows software on another machine, etc. until Parallels is ready for prime time.
Having said that, I am VERY disappointed with the Parallels development team for releasing as a purported beta version a piece of software that was found in the first 24 hours by users to be unable to perform its primary supposed new functions. If the main, trumpeted benefit of the new version, resulting in a SlashDot article, was that it could use a Boot Camp installation as the basis for a VM, why doesn't that even begin to work? Didn't anybody on the development team bother to try this software on a machine with Boot Camp installed from a store-bought, individual Windows XP license? Did they assume all of their users would have a corporate copy of WIndows, or one particular NTFS file system, like their development machine? Pardon me if I thought that was what "alpha" level testing was all about.
I'm afraid that Parallels has torn its britches on this little episode. It will be a long time before any serious Intel Mac user thinks about using the Parallels software as anything other than a toy. You need to come clean about this debacle, show some transparency in your release process, and rebuild your reputation, guys.
I am a Boot Camp user of Windows XP Pro on a MacBook Pro who has been waiting to use Parallels until it could coexist successfully with Boot Camp. I use my Windows partition for critical, business-related applications not available on my preferred Mac OS X platform. Boot Camp is solid, professionally developed and tested software that I am confident with. I would love to use a virtualized Windows on my Mac, but am not eager to get into the process of reauthorizing Windows, re-installing my Windows software on another machine, etc. until Parallels is ready for prime time.
Having said that, I am VERY disappointed with the Parallels development team for releasing as a purported beta version a piece of software that was found in the first 24 hours by users to be unable to perform its primary supposed new functions. If the main, trumpeted benefit of the new version, resulting in a SlashDot article, was that it could use a Boot Camp installation as the basis for a VM, why doesn't that even begin to work? Didn't anybody on the development team bother to try this software on a machine with Boot Camp installed from a store-bought, individual Windows XP license? Did they assume all of their users would have a corporate copy of WIndows, or one particular NTFS file system, like their development machine? Pardon me if I thought that was what "alpha" level testing was all about.
I'm afraid that Parallels has torn its britches on this little episode. It will be a long time before any serious Intel Mac user thinks about using the Parallels software as anything other than a toy. You need to come clean about this debacle, show some transparency in your release process, and rebuild your reputation, guys.
- Status