The Joel on Software Discussion Group

According to http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp it will be illegal to run most versions of Windows Vista inside a virtual machine. The only versions that you'll be allowed to run this way are Windows Vista Business and Ultimate. You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint.

The article pooh-poohs this concern, but i see it as a very real problem. For example, as a security researcher, i often need to test a particular installation of a particular OS. Let's say there's a potential flaw in Vista Home Edition, or some malware that runs in a particular way on that version of Vista. Legally, i wouldn't be allowed to install it in a virtual machine to do malware analysis.

I can imagine a virus or other piece of malware being written that checked what kind of Windows you were running, and saved its nastiest behavior for the versions that you can't legally run in a VM.

Software developers will be hurt by this too -- Joel's extolled the virtues of VmWare in the past, for those bugs that only seem to happen on the Korean version of Windows XP Service Pack 1. Rather than having to keep a million real machines set up and ready to go, you can use VMs (and snapshotting) to make issue reproduction significantly easier. But no more.

And it gets worse: you can only have one VM for each Windows license. So you're not allowed to have, say, two snapshots. The only exception is for Windows Vista Enterprise, where you're allowed to have up to four. This still sucks. Consider what Joel wrote at http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/05/02.html ...

"I end up with a bunch of snapshots with different configurations and I can go back or forwards to a particular configuration in one step."

Not anymore, at least not legally.

I saw this last week and agree with both of your examples in which you'd need to run Vista Home in a virtual machine.

I'm running RC2 of Vista right now and it seems to run well and it has a certain amount of flare.

On the other hand, it's a case of too little, too late.  They've been showing us bits and pieces of Vista for the last 4 years.  Most of the desireable features have been cut or made available to XP.  The list of performance issues, annoyances and stupid licensing restrictions that have surfaced in the last month really trouble me.

I can't really see any reason to upgrade...

"Licensed to the hardware and not the person" would seem to mean you can run 2, 10, 100 copies in a VM on that one bit of hardware.  They do seem to want it both ways though.

I'm not anti-MS by nature but a lot of these sorts of things will probably drive me to Linux or xBSD someday.

They are clearly motivated by a close relationship with hardware vendors to jointly keep making us buy new hardware and software.  We've long passed the point where I want to shout NO MORE!

Slim: Your assumption is completely wrong -- scroll down to the "Virtualization licensing" section at the end of the article.

I've been seriously considering a Mac.
http://www.computerpoweruser.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles/archive/c0611/44c11/44c11.asp&guid=8CF5E5CB35CB42E1857F6F42970E2A2C

Of course I'd have to trade Windows Forms, ASP.NET and SQL Server for some other similar technologies.  Any ideas?    Don't say ROR -- I'm building something projects a little more complicated than a 'blog'.  (Oh no he didn't!)  ;)

More about licensing changes: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156

Also more info on the OT (running Vista Home in a VM): http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=157

> Slim: Your assumption is completely wrong

Yeah, I got that.  Thus my "they want it both ways" comment.

I also saw the provision they make for the Vista "corporate whore" edition.  How many small ISVs qualify for THAT?

So the only change appears that some Vista editions can't legally be run in a VM even if you bought a license for each VM.  AFAIK that's the current policy (pay for a license for the host and each VM) but with a new restriction (some Vistas are never legal in a VM).

Plus Vista won't run VS2005.  Those guys in Redmond are trying my patience.

Anyone know about MSDN licensing terms? These are different than the shrinkwrap terms, wouldn't suprise me if you could use vms there.  Can't find the license text anywhere though.

"Anyone know about MSDN licensing terms? These are different than the shrinkwrap terms, wouldn't suprise me if you could use vms there."

Indeed.  It would surprise me if you *couldn't*

"Of course I'd have to trade Windows Forms, ASP.NET and SQL Server for some other similar technologies.  Any ideas?"

There are quite a few alternatives to these on OS X. The main problems however, are the limited market size and the lack of quality "big iron".

I would feel comfortable encouraging you to develop a desktop application for OS X, or something that has a relatively simple footprint, such as a dating web site. I would not however recommend recoding the SABRE airline reservation system, complete with fat clients on the Mac platform yet.

Bringing this back to the original subject - if you could no longer simulate Vista based server and client networks through VmWare, could this lead to a return to operating systems like Solaris and AS/400?

I mean if I'm doing a fat client based architecture, I can still simulate on one desktop PC a Solaris "server" and a bunch of Linux "workstations" for testing purposes. But apparently, I won't be able to simulate a Vista server and multiple Vista workstations on the same machine?

<<Plus Vista won't run VS2005.  Those guys in Redmond are trying my patience.>>

YOU ARE WRONG about this. VS 2005 IDE WILL run on Vista as well as any exe that was developed using VS 2002 or 2003. However, what will NOT run on Vista relative to IDEs is VS 2002 and 2003.

I am citing Soma's web log (a Microsoft executive) as a reference...

http://blogs.msdn.com/somasegar/archive/2006/09/26/772250.aspx

Belly up to the table and play with the big boys by purchasing the necessary overhead legally or find alternative methods to operate your ISV.  What's the problem?

Microsoft have clearly stated that the company is targetting the small business sector due to the gap between casual home user and corporate sector.  One can't seriously be surprised to find that by competing in this target market that Microsoft wants to own as well will incur significant overhead and yet more ways to make Microsoft money off both customer and solutions provider, can they?

Big corporations can handle it, home users are not affected overall, and ISV are being setup to feel the pinch the hardest.  Right in line with what Microsoft has been saying for a while now.

"I can't really see any reason to upgrade"

People said the same thing about Win98 vs Win2000 back in the day.

Heck, people even said similar things about XP except they claimed it was buggy, wasn't compatible with their software. Then the world repeated this mindless banter again with XP SP2.

Every once in awhile MS makes revolution jumps vs evolutionary ones.  Most DOS/3.11 couldn't run 95 properly.  Most 9x boxes couldn't run 2000.  Now we're in a new cycle, most 2000/XP boxes can't run Vista properly.

Nothing has changed, we're just in a new cycle, same thing all over again.  If a dual core + 1gb of ram + dx9 video seems excessive, don't forget that 192mb of ram looked excessive when Win2000 came out.

It's fine to think a new cycle of Windows wants too much resources, heck even I think Vista wants too much.  But to make bold claims like "I'll never run it" is absurd considering 3yrs from now, you will be.  Unless you proudly run Win98SE on a 4ghz box /w 512mb of ram, you have no place claiming you won't upgrade.  At least the 98SE die-hards have the integrity to stick to their guns, everybody else is simply full of it.

* gets off his soap box *

I bet it'll run fine of Virtual PC, though ..

Perhaps a specially designed Empower Program--with a smaller scope and priced appropriated--would be proper for developers who need to do testing over a smaller range of consumer-class Windows platforms and want to utilize Virtual PC/VMware. I see microISVs and web developers falling into this category. But I think Microsoft would want you to just jump into the deeper end of the pool with Empower as soon as your business becomes seriously enough to justiy a testing tab (even if the lab can fit all within a virtual machin).

The Empower program is already really confusing, more derivatives of the program would just confuse people. But championing for more improvements to the existing program would be worth-while. Like, perpetual developer use for the software allowed during the license period (instead of having it taken away at the end of the use term). Easier extension requirements. Extension past 2 years.

I've got a perfectly nice Win2K development box in front of me right now.

And since the original VS.Net isn't supported under Vista, and since we still need to do bugfixes for a program built with that version (and which has found an average of one compiler bug every time we upgrade to a new VS), I guess I won't be running Vista any time soon. :-)

That said, if the MSDN license doesn't allow us to run Vista inside VMware for testing purposes, I'll be very ticked off. Thanks for pointing this issue out.

It looks like I'm pretty much screwed as far as Vista is concerned. I run multiple Windows VMs, which would make Vista Enterprise the right choice, but I run them on a Mac. The new license terms disallow that.

"I can't really see any reason to upgrade..."

You don't need a reason. Any new computer you purchase will have Vista regardless of whether you want it or not.

Microsoft will not let anyone purchase XP after a while.

You WILL be assimilated!

It's very hard to develop $20 software when you have to purchase a separate physical machine to test every single variant of Windows Vista.

Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft is actively trying to discourage one man programming shops and "Trivialware", I'm sure their support costs and planning headaches diminish considerably when they don't have to deal with all of the shareware and donationware products out there.

Whatever happened to "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers"?

> Heck, people even said similar things about XP except they claimed it was buggy, wasn't compatible with their software. Then the world repeated this mindless banter again with XP SP2.

It's funny that you call it "mindless banter" when the Microsoft marketing department is currently the best funded and most vocal critic of the instabilities and design flaws in XP.  ;)

The "mindless banter" as you call it is dismissed as knee-jerk microsoft bashing when each OS version is first released, but a few years later it always turns out that there actually are flaws with each version and it's ok to admit that.

>> I've been seriously considering a Mac.

Uh, how's that going to help?  The OS X license states that you can run a copy on "a single Apple-labeled computer".  Clearly, this prohibits running under a VM since no VM could be described as an "Apple-labeled computer", not to mention the much stricter restriction of only allowing you to run on Apple hardware. 

>> Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft is actively trying to discourage one man programming shops and "Trivialware"

Uh yeah, right.  That's why they've released all the free development tools.

Oh hey, guess what.  If you actually read the license (radical idea, I know), it turns out that the whole premise of this thread is FALSE. 

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

All this is saying is that you can't run ONE LICENSED COPY of Vista on a VM under itself.  This is no different from Windows XP.  The point of making this explicit in the license is that Vista Ultimate Super-Duper Deluxe Edition (or whatever it's called) allows you to run under a VM with the SAME LICENSE on the same machine:

"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."

Note that this actually allows more freedom with virtualization than the current Windows XP license does.  Got to love a world where Microsoft gives users more and everybody complains.

>>>> Sometimes I wonder if Microsoft is actively trying to >>discourage one man programming shops and "Trivialware"

>>Uh yeah, right.  That's why they've released all the free >>development tools.


I was under the impression that the tools were no longer free after this November... at least that's what they said when they first released them.

SomeBody: The language is ambiguous, which is why the author of the winsupersite.com story i linked at the beginning of this thread spoke directly with the Microsoft general manager behind all this. As the author says, "There are so many opinions out there on the Internet. But opinions are a dime a dozen. Sometimes, when you want to know what's really going on, all you have to do is ask the source. That's what I've done here."

...and he drew the opposite conclusion you did.

Perusing the license further (BTW, it's available at http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx ), i see this:

"Before you use the software under a license, you must assign
that license to one device (physical hardware system). That device is the 'licensed device.'"

So no, you're not allowed to declare a VM as the licensed device.

In a world where Intel and AMD are building virtualization support into their processors, it's pretty disappointing to see MS take a position that's so clearly anti-virtualization.

I'd rather see MS come up with a concurrent licensing mechanism for VM's.  Go ahead and require 10 licenses if I'm actually using 10 machines at once, but don't penalize me for the VM I keep around to test some obscure software combination once every six months: http://www.appdev.info/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=53

"Heck, people even said similar things about XP except they claimed it was buggy, wasn't compatible with their software. Then the world repeated this mindless banter again with XP SP2."

This time feels a bit different though - Where I work, with 98/2K/XP upgrade we probably has 1/3 against the upgrade, 1/3 ambivalent, 1/3 queueing up outside Harris ready to but a shiny new version.  This time I can't find anyone who WANTS to upgrade and probably 2/3 want to stay with XP no matter what.

Certainly the VM restrictions are a showstopper for me...  I test with quite a few snapshots of a few versions of XP and 2K.

I wonder if they will back down on this one... Wouldn't suprise me (unless they really are getting more stupid with time).

>> I was under the impression that the tools were no longer free after this November... at least that's what they said when they first released them.

Within a few months of the release, they announced that the Express editions would be free forever.

The Microsoft world is all about pirating software. So many companies have only partial (or no) licence coverage for their Office suites and various upgrades. And of course MS itself has earned several convictions for infringing other people's copywrites (notice that I don't say stealing because it's not theft). So Vista in a VM will just be more of the same.

Move over to Linux or FreeBSD if it bothers you. The ethical standards seem to be a little better here.

-----"Nothing has changed, we're just in a new cycle, same thing all over again.  If a dual core + 1gb of ram + dx9 video seems excessive, don't forget that 192mb of ram looked excessive when Win2000 came out."------

The last desktop I built was dual core with 2GB RAM. And it will stay running on XP for the next four or five years until I upgrade again.

The W2000 box it replaced (733Mhz & 384MB RAM) is still working. I built it in 2000 and replaced it this April.

There was a good reason to upgrade from W98 to W2000, as long as you were prepared to buy some new peripherals (just a scanner in my case), and that was the fact that W2K was much more stable. The daily reboot became unnecessary. After that however there has been no real reason to change; XPSP2 is better than  W2K but not by a great deal.

Microsoft may not *want* you to run their software in a virtual machine, but is this legally enforceable? If I purchase one copy of their software to run on one PC then *how* I run it is none of their god damn business.

I may have different copies on different hard drives, but it is still only *one* PC.

Besides, how would they *know* ?

The article linked to appears to be simply wrong. You have always been able to transfer XP, and in certain jurisdictions (Germany for example) even OEM licenses are transferable.

Tony: If you work for a big company, they're going to have people keeping an eye on this sort of thing. Microsoft (via the BSA) is very good at finding big businesses that don't have all their licenses in order -- usually via disgruntled employees who claim huge rewards ($200,000 according to Wikipedia). And you never know when new technological means will be introduced to enforce Windows Activation rules.

Besides, why should honest programmers be forced to skirt the law in order to get their jobs done?

"Microsoft may not *want* you to run their software in a virtual machine ... how would they *know* ?"

Don't be surprised if Virtual PC 2004 SP2 and Virtual PC 2007 contain this new magical feature which analyze which OS you're booting and prevent you from using certain flavors of Vista.

DRM is a b*tch eh?

Travis: Yeah -- it's notoriously difficult to write an undetectable VM. In other words, there are numerous known ways to detect if a program is running in a VM, and nobody's come up with a way to solve most of them.

So it would be a total piece of cake for Windows to look for this and pop up an error message on startup: "Windows has detected that it is running inside a virtual machine. This is not allowed. Press OK to shut down."

"it's notoriously difficult to write an undetectable VM."

Are you certain about this?

I can't quote any links off hand but I remember seeing some security white papers suggesting that undetectable rootkits are simply a matter of time - you just need to know what an operating system will look for and fake it.

Even Apple is not wasting a lot of time and effort trying to come up with a 100% secure method of preventing OS X from running on beige boxes - they will just simply not offer support to anyone not using actual Macintosh hardware.

To a virtual-machine'd operating system, VmWare is no different than a rootkit.

You're thinking of AMD CPU hypervisors and Joanna Rutkowska's "blue pill" software; that's totally different from virtual machine software. Rootkits are completely different too. See http://handlers.sans.org/tliston/ThwartingVMDetection_Liston_Skoudis.pdf for an excellent discussion on the topic.

Arrogant behavior like this is really obnoxious and will hurt Microsoft in the long run.

I don't really give a rat's ass about Microsoft piracy concerns -- we pay good money to run Microsoft software, and I really resent the big brother nonsense.

Microsoft's current state reminds me alot of Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart used to be a company that made cashiers rich with stock options. Then the founder died, and the new management that stepped in were faced with a decline in growth because Wal-Mart is pretty much everywhere now. Wal-Mart shareholders want growth, so the accountants come in and start cutting corners and turning the company into something that just about everyone resents.

The only good thing about this is that the accounting nightmares that will stem from the "new Microsoft" will make it much easier to sell open source alternatives to management.

OT: "...unless they really are getting more stupid with time..."

It would be a rare group where the departure of BillG would raise the average IQ...

That's it. This is the deathknell for Vista. With this and the fact that people who make virus scanner software and other driver software creators won't be able to make kernel (ring 0) drivers and must make their stuff sit in userspace -- who would want Vista?

If there are any Microsoft people reading this thread: Please try to make some sort of public announcement about using MSDN licenses and VMs for testing different OS configurations.