mean samwily
Bit poster
Can anyone see any concerns with this? I'd assume it would be fine
Running Parallels and Bootcamp on same physical machine
- Thread starter mean samwily
- Start date
BlueSkyISdotCOM
Member
No problem.
mean samwily said:
I am using BootCamp (triple boot) and have Parallel images of FreeBSD, Ubuntu and Windows XP for the Virtual Machine. Works perfectly, though you must be aware that the images are truly like different harddrives - they are not different partitions on your machine, just big disk images (which look like big files in the Finder).
You need to install Windows XP once in bootcamp, and once for the Virtual Machine. You would also need two licenses thus for Windows XP.
What would be really nice would be if Parallels would recognize partitions and be able to boot off of them in emulation. That would be truly the best of both world and both situations - not to mention having only to install Windows once
(which is already one time too many...).
Hopefully I've muddied the waters enough for you there. ;-)
.
Well, the next full release, 3.0, was due around the end of the year. However, it is now being reported by Parallel's people to be arriving Q1 2007. I would expect that physical partitions will be available in that release. Having said that, it is one of the most requested features and may show up in a minor release before then. Having said that, there are other, more requested features which probably have a release priority.cajetanus said:
Hopefully I've muddied the waters enough for you there. ;-)
.
I run Parallels and Boot Camp on same system - works perfectly (with 2 Windows licenses of course).
I'm not sure how valuable physical volume support would be with respect to running 1 copy of Windows in both. Remember the virtual environment in Parallels is completely different than thereal environment in Boot Camp (different video cards, etc). Windows couldn't run in both places at the same time - it would need to be validated for each switch as Windows sees the different devices.
What would be useful is that you could have data and applications shared between Parallels and Bootcamp with a dedicated physical volume. You would still need to run Windows separately.
For those folks that use VMWare, you know what I mean. Even though you can access a physical volume in a virtual machine, you still need to run Windows from the virtual volume. The advantage is speed (the virtual Windows can access the physical volume at full speed) as well as data sharing.
I'm not sure how valuable physical volume support would be with respect to running 1 copy of Windows in both. Remember the virtual environment in Parallels is completely different than thereal environment in Boot Camp (different video cards, etc). Windows couldn't run in both places at the same time - it would need to be validated for each switch as Windows sees the different devices.
What would be useful is that you could have data and applications shared between Parallels and Bootcamp with a dedicated physical volume. You would still need to run Windows separately.
For those folks that use VMWare, you know what I mean. Even though you can access a physical volume in a virtual machine, you still need to run Windows from the virtual volume. The advantage is speed (the virtual Windows can access the physical volume at full speed) as well as data sharing.
Paul Linden
Member
People have reported success with getting MS to activate with the same license key for Boot Camp and Parallels installs, because you can't use XP in both at the same time. I haven't done this, but it wouldn't do any harm to phone and ask.
However, you still have to install XP twice.
However, you still have to install XP twice.
BlueSkyISdotCOM
Member
You're allowed to install Windows more than once on the same physical machine. If you get a "too many activations" error, you can call Microsoft, tell them that you're installing on the same computer, and they'll give you a working activation key.
Actually, no, that's what would be called a "cheat". Microsoft's policy is very clear about this kind of thing, and a boot camp install plus a Parallels install requires two licenses of Windows XP. Windows Vista Enterprise and Ultimate will allow this kind of install with a single license though.
Obviously, it is technically possible to do what you're saying, and the folks on the other end of the activation line might give you a pass (though that may be because they either 1) don't understand what you're actually doing or 2) don't understand the license issues). But let us not unintentionally deceive people here---the practice is not within the bounds of the XP license agreement.
More info here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikekol/archive/2006/07/12/662511.aspx
Check the comments for the XP clarification.
Obviously, it is technically possible to do what you're saying, and the folks on the other end of the activation line might give you a pass (though that may be because they either 1) don't understand what you're actually doing or 2) don't understand the license issues). But let us not unintentionally deceive people here---the practice is not within the bounds of the XP license agreement.
More info here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/mikekol/archive/2006/07/12/662511.aspx
Check the comments for the XP clarification.
Last edited:
XP License for Boot Camp and Parallels
I wonder if what you say is true. The Windows XP liicense is for a single machine and processor chip. Boot camp and parallels cannot be run at the same time under any circumstances and there is only one computer. Can you show me in a quote from the MS License agreement where you have to conclude it is necessary to buy a second copy to install XP twice on one computer not a blog full of speculations!! I couldn't see it but I will look again!
I wonder if what you say is true. The Windows XP liicense is for a single machine and processor chip. Boot camp and parallels cannot be run at the same time under any circumstances and there is only one computer. Can you show me in a quote from the MS License agreement where you have to conclude it is necessary to buy a second copy to install XP twice on one computer not a blog full of speculations!! I couldn't see it but I will look again!
In the Win XP EULA, paragraph 1.1.1, it says:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not
be used by more than two (2) processors at any one
time on any single Workstation Computer.
It's pretty clear that Microsoft does not want you to install more than one copy on a 'workstation computer'. So...to hell with what Microsoft wants.
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access,
display and run one copy of the Software on a single
computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other
device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not
be used by more than two (2) processors at any one
time on any single Workstation Computer.
It's pretty clear that Microsoft does not want you to install more than one copy on a 'workstation computer'. So...to hell with what Microsoft wants.
I dunno, it's pretty clear to me that the Parallels -- bootcamp situation didn't exist when that was written, so there's no way they could cover it. If only one copy is running, I very much doubt a court would find you in violation, but of course it's pretty unlikely to ever get that far.
michaelant
Junior Member
BlueSkyISdotCOM said:
I have XP running in Boot Camp and in Parallels, on a single license. I did the Camp install first, and then when going to activate in Parallels, the MS rep on the phone asked me if my 2nd XP installation was on the same machine as the first, which it was of course, and they had no further questions, activated XP in Parallels for me. Rep didn't sound the least bit suspicious, sounded like it was part of the script that XP could be installed more than once on the same machine. I hardly had to say anything.
Paul Linden
Member
Well, whether or not you are strictly meant to have two licenses, it is true that MS reps, in full knowledge of what customers were doing, have allowed more than one activation on the same license. I doubt that anyone has anything to feel guilty about and no one should feel they have to throw more money at Microsoft.mcg said: