Microsoft WON'T give me a second key!!!!!

R

Robster

Hunter
As a number of people here had reported success in obtaining a second key for their Boot Camp install I thought I would give it a try.

Not a bloody chance.

And even told me that the people who said they were doing it must be doing it illegally!!!!!

Bloody Microsoft.

Robin
 
Sorry mate, but yeah it makes sense. From all the posts I've read here, the only way you can get another key is to bluff you way around it, i.e. "my motherboard died in a storm" etc. etc.

As an aside, I originally purchased Parallels solely to run Windows on my MB. Now I've discovered another entire universe with all of the linux distros out there: Ubuntu, Suse, Madriva etc. and now I find I'm launching Windows less and less.
 
Actually it doesn't "make sence"...

It's not like you're running XP in two places at the same time... In fact, a parallel's install & a boot camp install would make that impossible... So why can't you use the same copy in both places???


Also, what if you wanted to ditch boot camp & go to parrallels? or what if you wanted to ditch parallels and go to boot camp?

In any case, it's not like the copy is being used on more than one machine... I'm a little ticked to read this to be fully honest. I though the activation code would work on either place because they both use the same processor... Now that I used parallels I have to fork over another $300 for another copy of XP Pro if I intend to use boot camp???
 
Well, Parallels emulates a set of hardware that doesn't match the set that Boot Camp provides (since the virtualization layer simulates certain hardware, including the video card). That makes the two machines look different enough that Windows wants separate keys.
 
Folks, that's the way the license was written waaaaaay back in 2001/2002 when XP came out... when there was no Intel Mac and VirtualPC wasn't owned by Microsoft. Very few people were running windows in VMs back then. Pretty much only applied to developers who had access to MSDN licenses for the OS anyway.

If you read the preliminary licensing info for Vista, you'll find that it includes support for Virtual Machines. Until then, you're stuck with the license you agreed to when you installed the OS.
 
A few weeks ago I bought a copy of Windows XP Pro OEM and installed it on my bootcamp partition. I then activated it. Since it's an OEM copy, it essentially locks this copy of XP to this machine (not supposed to be transferable to another machine).

I then installed the same copy using Parallels. To activate, I called Microsoft and told them exactly what I was doing...no deception. The rep made the point, "...so both copies are running on the same pc." I said, "yes, I'm running one natively and one inside a virtual machine, but never both at the same time." He gave me an activation code no problem.

I'm just trying to provide a data point for everyone that not everyone is using deception to accomplish this. I was straight up-front with them. Their EULA, if not able to handle it now, really needs to take into account the issue of vm. Buying two copies for the same machine is just ridiculous.
 
I agree -- in the other thread it was pointed out that folks were not always being deceptive. This is an odd one, as although it is not supposed to be allowed, what does it mean that their own phone people ok it. Definitely a mixed signal even if but for ignorant (or some other word here) phone people.

Anyway that said, VMs or not, a thing about say the OEM and the "regular" commercial XP license is that you are not even supposed to install it into two different partitions on the same machine.

I had hoped others would join in on the thread I started in the MS forums, but that did not happen. So here we are.
 
Clarification:

You are NOT entitled to a second key for XP if running in boot camp and Parallels.

You ARE entitled to a second activation on the same system however. Microsoft permit XP to be installed more than once to dual-boot on a system and this falls within the same allowance. Only one copy of XP can be active at a time however you cut it (try getting boot camp and parallels active at the same time ;)), the other can be viewed as an inactive partition or cold clone, it's all legit.

An OEM copy will likely only activate once before you talk to a CSR, but retail copies have to see three activations in a year before you're prompted.
 
Hmmm - feature request - allow me to control what Parallels "reports" as the virtual hardware!;)

David Jameson


Sheppy said:
Well, Parallels emulates a set of hardware that doesn't match the set that Boot Camp provides (since the virtualization layer simulates certain hardware, including the video card). That makes the two machines look different enough that Windows wants separate keys.
Click to expand...
 
IANAL, but while it may violate the licenese agreement, it doesn't violate the law to use the same license on both bootcamp and parelles on the same machine. I don't use, and have no use for bootcamp. But if I did, I'd use the same license on both machines.

Also, for those of you that keep saying that you only want to do it if MS allows it, MS reps giving or not giving the second auth it does not make any difference as to if it's legal or not. They are $9 an hour phone support personel. They are not part of the MS legal department.
 
This is a perfect example of how so many modern copy protection schemes wind up rewarding the pirates while punishing the honest users.:mad:

I know personally people who use illegally acquired copies of windows that are happily, but unfairly, not having to deal with these issues.

I am fortunate to be covered under my department's institutional support contract with microsoft so I have not had any bad experiences myself (plus I don't run bootcamp), but I really feel sorry for the people who purchased a legitimate copy of windows who cannot run it under bootcamp and parallels because of copy protection.

Come on, does microsoft really think that anybody who wants to use both bootcamp and parallels on the same machine should have to buy TWO licenses? If that really does violate the license agreement, then the license agreement clearly needs to be FIXED

Just my 2 cents :p
 
You may take this grotesque one step further. Version 3 of Parallels for Mac is supposed to provide the ability to use a physical installation of the guest OS as a VM. This would allow for either booting directly into the guest OS without a running host OS or having the guest OS execute as a virtual machine within a host OS.

This "dual boot" option will inevitably lead to completely different hardware profiles depending on what booting option you chose. However, you'll be basically running the same installation of the guest OS, only that it will see different hardware setups when booted. How is this going to be handled? One activation or two? Same license?

Bye, Malte
 
I tried today to get a second key and they told I could not install XP twice on the same machine. Do you have to reinstall all your programs in Parellels?
 
First of all relax! Next call M$ and go thru the ordeal necessary to reach a human. You don't have to ask for another key, and you don't have to give a long explanation of which you are guaranteed they will not understand. When they ask how many machines you have the software installed on say ONE. They will then activate your machine. Hang up.
 
I repeat my suggestion made in this forum on 08-06-2006, 10:33 PM

There needs to be a way for the Parallels system to be able to return a hardware description that looks like some other hardware (e.g., the same thing that would be returned by Bootcamp) to eliminate this silly problem.
 
Delphyne said:
If you read the preliminary licensing info for Vista, you'll find that it includes support for Virtual Machines. Until then, you're stuck with the license you agreed to when you installed the OS.
Click to expand...

Vista licensing actually explicitly prohibits running most Vista versions on ANY VM, even if you have a separate license for it. None of the licensing for desktop versions of Vista allow a single license to be shared on a host and a VM.
 
dotorg said:
Vista licensing actually explicitly prohibits running most Vista versions on ANY VM, even if you have a separate license for it. None of the licensing for desktop versions of Vista allow a single license to be shared on a host and a VM.
Click to expand...

That's not accurate.

The two cheper "Home" versions are not licensed for VM usage. The Business and Ultimate are.

Whether or not they allow for BootCamp/Parallels usage with one license is another question.

Versions:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/editions/default.mspx

Virtualization licensing
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp

(NOTE: that last site above is written by someone who is THOROUGHLY A WINDOWS FAN and addresses several problems in Vista's licensing)

See also

Vista license forbids accessing DRM inside a virtual machine
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/10/13/vista_license_forbid.html

So you'll need BootCamp to use any DRM stuff, assuming that you can get it to work.

TjL
 
dotorg said:
Vista licensing actually explicitly prohibits running most Vista versions on ANY VM, even if you have a separate license for it. None of the licensing for desktop versions of Vista allow a single license to be shared on a host and a VM.
Click to expand...
Untrue.

Vista Ultimate permits it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top