Licensing: two instances of Windows XP on one machine?

[Rick]

I am a software developer and I want to have two separate instances of
Windows XP Pro on the same machine but on two different bootable hard
drives. Does a normal single license allow me to do this? Will I run into
problems when I try to activate the 2nd instance? Anyone know for sure?

Thanks

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

You must purchase a second license for Windows XP if
you wish to install Windows XP on a second drive.

You are only permitted to install one (1) copy of Windows XP
on one (1) computer using the Product Key (license). Additional
installations on the same PC require their own unique Product Key.

Please read your End-User License Agreement by going
to Start > Run and type: WINVER , and hit enter. Then
click on "End-User License Agreement".

If you already have a retail copy of Windows XP, you can obtain
additional licenses for another computer or laptop by visiting the
following Microsoft Web site:
http://shop.microsoft.com/special/wal/walinfo.asp

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| I am a software developer and I want to have two separate instances of
| Windows XP Pro on the same machine but on two different bootable hard
| drives. Does a normal single license allow me to do this? Will I run into
| problems when I try to activate the 2nd instance? Anyone know for sure?
|
| Thanks

 

[Rick]

OK, thanks. That's what I suspected.

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I am a software developer and I want to have two separate instances
of Windows XP Pro on the same machine but on two different bootable
hard drives. Does a normal single license allow me to do this? Will I
run into problems when I try to activate the 2nd instance? Anyone know
for sure?

Just make a clone of the 1st copy - the clone will run in the same PC
as if it were the the 1st copy. As a matter of fact, the clone won't even
know it's a clone, and neither will Microsoft. You can dual-boot between
them, and since the 2 systems will be on separate drives, you don't even
have to involve dual-booting and the extra entries in the 2 boot.ini files -
just change the HD boot order in the BIOS, and the HD that you put at the
head of the list will boot. This will be a technical violation of Microsoft's
EULA, but no intelligent person, including Microsoft, believes that anyone
would buy a 2nd license for such usage or that a proscription against
such usage is even enforceable.

As with all clones of Win2K/NT/XP, don't let the clone see the "parent"
OS when you start it up for the 1st time - it would set pointers to files in
the "parent" that you wouldn't know about until you removed the "parent"
at a later date, and you subsequently found that some files were "missing"
from the clone. But after you start the clone in isolation from its "parent",
the clone may subsequently be started in the presence of its "parent" OS
and the "parent" partition will merely be seen as another Local Disk with
an accessible file structure. Note that the "parent" may be started with the
newly-made clone visible to it, and no such pointers will be set. It's just that
the *clone* must have its 1st startup isolated from its "parent" OS.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I am a software developer and I want to have two separate instances
of Windows XP Pro on the same machine but on two different bootable
hard drives. Does a normal single license allow me to do this? Will I run
into problems when I try to activate the 2nd instance? Anyone know for
sure?

If it has been more than 120 days (i.e. 4 months) since the last
activation, it will all go automatically with no questions asked. If it
has been less that 120 days since your copy was last installed, you
will have to call Microsoft and explain to the drone that your 1st
installation "got corrupted" and he will allow activation of your new
installation. If your old installation continues to exist, the drone has
no way of knowing. Apparently, Microsoft doesn't want to keep install-
ation records for more than 4 months, and it realizes that installations
*do* get corrupted, and hard drives *do* fail, and people *do* change
motherboards from time to time, and Microsoft's purpose is to thwart
pirates who make hundreds or thousands of copies of a single
installation CD.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Guest]

If you cannot provide an honest response to a question,
please do not post at all. Your suggestions are all fraudulent
and blantantly violate the End User License Agreement.

 

[Jim]

Tim's absolutely correct. I understand the position the MVPs have to take
since they speak for MS and must, as a matter of policy, provide a strict
interpretation of the EULA. But it's possible to be totally correct *and*
totally absurd at the same time.

The idea that having essentially cloned your XP partition to another HD, or
even the same HD, would require yet another license is TOTALLY ABSURD.
Think about this for 2 nanoseconds and you realize that based on such a
strict interpretation of the EULA, even making a BACKUP COPY of the
partition is *technically* a violation! Or, using the strictest
interpretation, is MS claiming that in order not to violate the terms of the
EULA a copy of the partition must otherwise be inoperable, such as imaged,
compressed, etc.?

Make all the damn copies/clones of the XP partition you want and need.
Heck, a HD change doesn't even affect activation, and for good reason, MS
support would be bombarded w/ calls. Good grief, you can only have one
instance booted at any given time, and only one user can be sitting at the
keyboard at any given time, the idea that ANY of this would require
additional licensing or is somehow shortchanging MS in any way is
preposterous.

Heck, I'm pissed off enough already that I have to have two licenses of XP,
one for my laptop, which I only use on the road, and the other on my desktop
(in which case, the laptop remains dormant). Seems entirely appropriate at
these OS prices that the typical consumer should be allowed at least ONE
extra license for such circumstances. But to think the activation/licensing
process could reach the point that merely copying/cloning to the same or
additional HD would be a violation, plzzzzzzz, let's get real. No court,
judge or juror would ever convict you, no matter WHAT the EULA says.

As they say at Nike, just do it

Jim

 

[Timothy Daniels]

My response was *entirely* truthful and honest, and I posted
in the interest of accuracy. That you adhere to absurdity in
name of "honesty" is your own perversion of the term. Reality
is reality, and the EULA in some of its facets is simply unreal.

*TimDaniels*


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" pissed and fumed:

 

[Timothy Daniels]

Tim's absolutely correct. I understand the position the MVPs
have to take since they speak for MS and must, as a matter
of policy, provide a strict interpretation of the EULA....

Carey Frisch is a maverick, a loose cannon among MVPs,
some of which have posted in these very Microsoft newsgroups
that prohibition of clones for use *in the same PC* is a bit much.
Simply ignore her.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

It's obvious you have no regard for licensing
agreements...how hypocritical and sad.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

 

[Rick]

I certainly didn't mean to raise a stink. The reason I want to run two
copies is that, contrary to Microsoft's claims, Visual Studio 2003 and
Visual Studio 2005 (with SQL Server) do not coexist in perfect harmony on
the same instance of Windows. I found this out the hard way by trying it.
It's important that I can work on my live 2003 code, while also experiment
with the newer version. So, in essence, it's Microsoft's fault that I have
to consider installing another instance of Windows, and as such I have
little qualms about working on a cloned partition, eula agreement or not.

Thanks to everyone for your input.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Well, you received my honest answer and some dishonest
answers. The choice you chose is a reflection of your
honesty and character.

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| I certainly didn't mean to raise a stink. The reason I want to run two
| copies is that, contrary to Microsoft's claims, Visual Studio 2003 and
| Visual Studio 2005 (with SQL Server) do not coexist in perfect harmony on
| the same instance of Windows. I found this out the hard way by trying it.
| It's important that I can work on my live 2003 code, while also experiment
| with the newer version. So, in essence, it's Microsoft's fault that I have
| to consider installing another instance of Windows, and as such I have
| little qualms about working on a cloned partition, eula agreement or not.
|
| Thanks to everyone for your input.

 

[Ron Martell]

Tim's absolutely correct. I understand the position the MVPs have to take
since they speak for MS and must, as a matter of policy, provide a strict
interpretation of the EULA. But it's possible to be totally correct *and*
totally absurd at the same time.

The EULA is in fact a contract between the user and Microsoft, and
like any contract it depends a lot on trust and honesty.

Obviously this expectation is not realistic with regard to at least
some people.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

 

[Jim]

It's 12:00 at night, you drive up to a dark, desolate intersection w/ a red
light. You wait 2, 3, then 5 minutes and realize the red light is STUCK,
BROKEN, it's not going to change. Pretty soon, there's a line of cars
behind you, honking. Another 5 minutes goes by, light is still red, another
10 minutes, still red. What do you do? You have two choices, run the red
light and *technically* violate the law, OR, look carefully both ways for
oncoming traffic, and proceed cautiously throw the intersection.

In Carey's world, you sit at the traffic light until the department of
transportation rolls on by and repairs the light. In Jim's world, you
proceed cautiously through the intersection and move on. Which one of these
responses is correct?

The EULA is like the law, it can't always be applied literally and with
absolutism, it must be sprinkled with sound judgment and common sense,
because neither the EULA or law can anticipate ALL cases and circumstances.
Ironically, you sometimes break the law in order to preserve the "spirit" of
the law, in this case, safety and the free flow of traffic. Haven't all us
at one time or another ran an intersection, perhaps in the rain, because we
knew it was more dangerous given the circumstances to slam on the brakes
than continue on thru, even if that meant the possibility of running the red
light. No, I don't make a practice of it, but I'm expected to use common
sense too, not just memorize the rule book. That's why we don't turn over
final decisions in matters of law, business, courts, etc., to computers.
Computers only know rules, people are expected to mitigate those rules w/
common sense.

The spirit of the EULA and licensing is to prevent the blantant misuse of
the OS on different machines by different people under the same license. To
take the EULA so literally that you become the "lady stuck at the red light"
is to be lost in the minutia that is the EULA and miss the big picture.
Sound judgement and common sense dictate that the purposes for which the OP
intended to duplicate the XP partition are sound, reasonable, and wholly
within the spirt of the EULA. I'm sure this is the least of Bill's concerns
when it comes to EULA violations.

Jim

 

[Timothy Daniels]

"Ron Martell" <wrote:

The EULA is in fact a contract between the user and Microsoft, and
like any contract it depends a lot on trust and honesty.

Obviously this expectation is not realistic with regard to at least
some people.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada

The EULA is an unforceable contract in regards to the installation
of multiple instances of the same OS with one license IN THE SAME
MACHINE. Not one person has been sued by Microsoft for so doing
because Microsoft knows it would lose the case and lose enforceability
for the rest of its EULA. It's a total bluff, and you and everyone else
knows that, even Ms. Frisch.

*TimDaniels*

 

[Timothy Daniels]

I certainly didn't mean to raise a stink. The reason I want to run two
copies is that, contrary to Microsoft's claims, Visual Studio 2003 and
Visual Studio 2005 (with SQL Server) do not coexist in perfect harmony on
the same instance of Windows. I found this out the hard way by trying it.
It's important that I can work on my live 2003 code, while also experiment
with the newer version. So, in essence, it's Microsoft's fault that I have
to consider installing another instance of Windows, and as such I have
little qualms about working on a cloned partition, eula agreement or not.

Thanks to everyone for your input.

Rick, if you want to try a cloning utility that has a focus on cloning and
in that function works very well, try Casper XP by Future Systems
Solutions. They offer a 30-day free trial version that you can download
from their website at: www.FSSdev.com/products/casperxp/ . I liked
it, so after the 30-day trial I bought it. Check it out. Unlike Acronis'
True Image, it can take a single partition from among several on a HD
and put it among several partitions on another HD - which I find handy
for making multiple backup clones that are each immediately bootable
without need for any "restore image" step. (Don't forget to keep the
"parent" OS invisible to the clone when the clone is 1st booted up.)

*TimDaniels*

 

[Rick]

Forgive me Carey, for I have sinned.

I can see why some people on this group don't like you. Preaching morality
from the book of Microsoft seems somewhat ironic given that Microsoft are
rarely out of the courts defending charges of abuse of their position,
contracts, and understandings. It seems that you have chosen to be the
Devil's advocate, and I'm guessing that's how you got the "[MVP]" after your
name.

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

Here is the hard truth to your original questions:

Q. "I want to have two separate instances of Windows XP Pro on the same
machine but on two different bootable hard drives. Does a normal single license
allow me to do this?"

A. No.

Q. "Will I run into problems when I try to activate the 2nd instance?"

A. You cannot activate a second installation of Windows XP without
violating the End User License Agreement.

Q. "Anyone know for sure?"

A. Yes, it is spelled out in the EULA.

Your comment:

"It seems that you have chosen to be the Devil's advocate, and I'm guessing
that's how you got the "[MVP]" after your name."

My comment:

Nope. I achieved the MVP award by helping thousands of Windows XP
users with honest and trustworthy answers and troubleshooting suggestions.

Why did you even post your originally question if reject an honest answer?
Are you a man or a weasel?

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows - Shell/User
Microsoft Community Newsgroups
news://msnews.microsoft.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

:

| Forgive me Carey, for I have sinned.
|
| I can see why some people on this group don't like you. Preaching morality
| from the book of Microsoft seems somewhat ironic given that Microsoft are
| rarely out of the courts defending charges of abuse of their position,
| contracts, and understandings. It seems that you have chosen to be the
| Devil's advocate, and I'm guessing that's how you got the "[MVP]" after your
| name.

 

[Robert Moir]

Tim's absolutely correct. I understand the position the MVPs have to
take since they speak for MS

Pardon? We _do not_ speak for Microsoft and Microsoft _do not_ speak for
MVPs. I'm on record as saying I disagree with some aspects of the EULA and
I'm not the only one.

and must, as a matter of policy, provide
a strict interpretation of the EULA.

Well if someone says "What does the EULA say" then any person, MVP,
Microsoft employee, enthusiastic computer user or total stranger either has
to lie out their ass, tell the truth or say "don't know".

But it's possible to be totally
correct *and* totally absurd at the same time.

Which is a good description of the EULA now you mention it.


--

 

[Ron Martell]

The EULA is an unforceable contract in regards to the installation
of multiple instances of the same OS with one license IN THE SAME
MACHINE. Not one person has been sued by Microsoft for so doing
because Microsoft knows it would lose the case and lose enforceability
for the rest of its EULA. It's a total bluff, and you and everyone else
knows that, even Ms. Frisch.

*TimDaniels*

I do not know of any court ruling that has stated that the terms of
the Microsoft EULA are unenforceable, and in the absence of any such
ruling it is presumptuous to state that this is so.

It really is a pity that so many people have no understanding of the
concept of personal honesty or integrity.

I grew up in a rural area where "my word is my bond" was a fact. All
sorts of business transactions were finalized with nothing more than a
handshake.

But in today's world it seems that many people will agree to comply
with the terms of a software license and then have absolutely no
hesitation about violating those terms whenever they please.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada