Vista EULA -- "hardware partition" == "disk partition"???

[Guest]

I know, not another EULA question.. Is MS' "hardware partition" terminology
designed to cover "bootable disk paritions" specifically? If so, what is the
value of restricting the number of installs on a single hardware unit? You
can only (practically) run one OS at a time, so it shouldn't matter how many
installs you have on that machine, right?

Not sure if MS employees respond to threads here. If not, is there an
official vista forum where I can get a response from somebody from MS?

Or if anybody has links to clarifications of the whole "hardware partition"
terminology I'd appreciate those as well.

Also, I just read in one of the recent EULA threads hereabouts that the XP
EULA didn't allow install on more than one disk partition per license -- I
don't see this in the EULA at all, just references to installing on "a single
computer":

"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."

 

[Chad Harris]

Kieth --

I can't answer that question. *I'd send that question to Nick White [MSFT]
because Nick plans to try to clarify the Eula very soon after going over
some of the questions raised by Robert McLaw's blog and the responses to
them and Nick is in a much better position to get that answer. You can
contact Nick through his blog (Nick is a developer on the Vista Launch team
at MSFT):
http://blogs.technet.com/windowsvista/default.aspx

To decipher the Vista Eula I think you have to get an attorney who has done
the Raiders of the Lost Ark 3 tour--and spent some time with the guru like
Uma Thurman in "Get Bill 2". You may get some clarification or more
confusder and confusder than ever with these links- it's going to be "fun
fun fun" though when the customers get "a hunk a hunka burnin' UAC and Vista
Eula (apologies to Elvis) and "Daddy takes the XP away".

I'd try to go item by item but I don't want to get hypnotized by reading the
Vista Eula worse than staring into a spinning Disco Ball this early in the
AM.

Vista's Enthusiastic Licensing Restrictions
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing_reply.asp

Longhorn Blogs Articles on Vista Eula
http://www.windows-now.com/search/SearchResults.aspx?q=eula

CH

 

[Guest]

*I'd send that question to Nick White [MSFT]
because Nick plans to try to clarify the Eula very soon after going over
some of the questions raised by Robert McLaw's blog [...]

Excellent, thanks for the info, Chad! I'll keep my eyes open for that...

 

[Steve de Mena]

I know, not another EULA question.. Is MS' "hardware partition" terminology
designed to cover "bootable disk paritions" specifically? If so, what is the
value of restricting the number of installs on a single hardware unit? You
can only (practically) run one OS at a time, so it shouldn't matter how many
installs you have on that machine, right?

With a product like VMWare I can have MANY copies
of Vista running simultaneously.

Steve

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi,

A partition, hardware or disk, is a logical construct of the drive space, as
is a volume. Regardless of how many you have, it is still the same machine.

There are a few 'softies that frequent these groups, but as they do so they
do not offer anything official from Microsoft in the way of legal
interpretations of their OS's licensing. No one has seen the final version
of the license yet, but in the past it has been that you are allowed to
install and use one copy of the software on one machine. This would preclude
multiple installations to different volumes on the same machine, however
there is nothing in activation or WGA that would prevent it either. Plus,
one of the recommended data recovery methods recommended by Microsoft is a
parallel installation, which would seem to imply that using a second
installation on the same machine to safeguard against data loss is within
the terms of the license.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[David Wilkinson]

With a product like VMWare I can have MANY copies of Vista running
simultaneously.

Not using the same license you can't. Unless it is the Vista beta
license or an MSDN license.

If I understand the OP's question, it is can you have the same licensed
copy of Vista (or XP) installed on different partitions of the same hard
disk? In this situation the different installations cannot be run
simultaneously.

David Wilkinson

 

[David Wilkinson]

There are a few 'softies that frequent these groups, but as they do so
they do not offer anything official from Microsoft in the way of legal
interpretations of their OS's licensing. No one has seen the final
version of the license yet, but in the past it has been that you are
allowed to install and use one copy of the software on one machine. This
would preclude multiple installations to different volumes on the same
machine, however there is nothing in activation or WGA that would
prevent it either. Plus, one of the recommended data recovery methods
recommended by Microsoft is a parallel installation, which would seem to
imply that using a second installation on the same machine to safeguard
against data loss is within the terms of the license.

More usefully, it would allow you to use one installation as a test
machine. Is this in fact allowed?

David Wilkinson

 

[xfile]

There are a few 'softies that frequent these groups, but as they do so

interpretations of their OS's licensing. No one has seen the final version
of the license yet

Try this:
http://download.microsoft.com/docum...lish_9d10381d-6fa8-47c7-83b0-c53f722371fa.pdf

5 (a) The software will from time to time validate the software, update or
require download of the
validation feature of the software. Validation verifies that the software
has been activated and is
properly licensed. Validation also permits you to use certain features of
the software or to obtain
additional benefits. For more information, see
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=39157.

15 (a). Software Other than Windows Anytime Upgrade.
The first user of the software may
reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the
license, that other device
becomes the ¡§licensed device.¡¨

Hope this helps.

 

[Guest]

A partition, hardware or disk, is a logical construct of the drive space, as
is a volume. Regardless of how many you have, it is still the same machine.

I think we agree here... though I'm under the impression that the term
"hardware partition" was invented by MS to cover, in particular, "disk
partitions". In all my years using computers and being a professional
software developer the Vista EULA is the first time I've ever heard of a
"hardware partition".

but in the past it has been that you are allowed to
install and use one copy of the software on one machine.

That's my understanding -- licensed for up to two CPUs on a single
"computer" (please see my earlier quote from the 1.1 section of the XP
EULA)...

This would preclude
multiple installations to different volumes on the same machine,

.... but this is the conclusion I've seen in other threads that I'm not
understanding... A "machine" (or "computer" or "workstation"...) is not a
"volume" or "partition", as you correctly inferred in your first statement.
So how does the XP EULA, for example, preclude installation to multiple
"partitions" on a single "computer"? The XP EULA specifically references
installation on "computers", not "partitions" or "volumes". I could have a
single machine with 20 partititions across 5 drives and install XP on each
one -- all installs are on a single "computer" and I can only use one of them
at a time on up to 2 CPUs.

Or maybe I'm just misreading your words.

In any event, I am curious about the interpretation of the XP EULA that I've
read around here, but more interested in this new "hardware partition"
terminology...

 

[Guest]

With a product like VMWare I can have MANY copies
of Vista running simultaneously.

I know. I was more interested in the multi-boot scenario. From a licensing
and piracy perspective, protecting against .0001% of the windows population
from running multiple installs simultaneously (on the same machine) is
probably way down on the list.

For multiple people to take advantage of a single license with something
like VMWare you'd need a bunch of KVM hardware, monitors, etc., an everyone
would have to physically sit in the same room. Or you could run sessions over
a network, which would be real fast.

For just a single person sitting in front of his machine, who cares how many
simultaneous OS runtimes you have going? It's like splicing your cable line
but instead of feeding each of your five neighbors you're plugging each line
into a switch box feeding a single TV in your living room. Sure you could
TiVO 5 programs at once, but who cares... the bigger problem is feeding the
lines to your neighbors.

 

[SESSION_EVENT]

Yes, I noticed. Off-hand it sounds like an attempt to limit the number of
installs of the same copy on your machine i.e. that they are trying to say
that one can install it on say C: but not create a dual-boot for your own
purposes with the same copy by installit on D: as well. Lousy EULA ..real
crummy.

I promise I will recommend Windows Vista if Microsoft removes WGA-N like
software from it and relent on the over-exacting retail EULA.

But until they do, Windows Vista will not be my primary OS. I will be using
it though, as I do development - I can't avoid it at this point. But my
documents and papers will be on a computer not controlled by Windows Vista.
If they don't care, so then why now should I?

 

[Alexander Suhovey]

-----Original Message-----

From: Keith [mailto:[email protected]]
Posted At: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 5:39 PM
Posted To: microsoft.public.windows.vista.general
Conversation: Vista EULA -- "hardware partition" == "disk partition"???
Subject: Re: Vista EULA -- "hardware partition" == "disk partition"???

In all my years using computers and being a professional software
developer the Vista EULA is the first time I've ever heard of a
"hardware partition".

Keith,

You might want to read following document:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/dhp.mspx

 

[Guest]

You might want to read following document:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/dhp.mspx

Excellent, thak you very much, Alexander. That's exactly what I was looking
for. It sounds like their use of "hardware partition" and "blade" are in fact
related, which wasn't clear to me. I guess with further clarification coming
down the road the multi-boot question will be resolved, but I do feel a
little better after seeing that "hardware partition" is (most likely) not
just a vague EULA term. There's still the transfer issue, but that's another
thread that doesn't need to be started...

Thanks again!

 

[Rick Rogers]

Hi David,

In that scenario, no, as that is essentially two working systems, but it
doesn't prevent it from being used that way.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Steve de Mena]

Not using the same license you can't. Unless it is the Vista beta
license or an MSDN license.

If I understand the OP's question, it is can you have the same licensed
copy of Vista (or XP) installed on different partitions of the same hard
disk? In this situation the different installations cannot be run
simultaneously.

David Wilkinson

That was not the issue, I was replying to someone
saying that "You can only (practically) run one OS
at a time".

Steve

 

[Steve de Mena]

More usefully, it would allow you to use one installation as a test
machine. Is this in fact allowed?

David Wilkinson

With MSDN I imagine it will be for Vista. I doubt
for the retail versions.

Steve

 

[Chad Harris]

Keith --

If you follow Ed Bott's two blogs if not now in a very short time I think he
will break it down in a way that anyone can understand the use of Vista on a
virtual machine and other licensing privileges. My understanding right now,
is that you can install to a Virtual Machine with only Ultimate, but I
wouldn't carve in stone what might be evolving. I think that MFST is going
to react to some of the feedback that they're getting on licensing
restrictions, have an even more liberal sales opportunity policy than has
been announced yesterday and today as to upgrade certificates and discounts
on Office and Vista, and I think litigation is going to force them to revise
their kill switch. Just my guess. See if these posts on Ed Bott's blog are
helpful to you and keep watching Robert McLaw's blog I linked for you and
Nick White's blog, Mary Jo Foley's on ZD net. Those 4 sites named above
will sort it out for you as fast as they can get MSFT to sort it out if and
when that happens.

blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=156

blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=158

www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=1022

www.windowsobserver.com/2006/10/16/ed-bott-on-vistas-new-eula/

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=25429&messageID=477298&start=-

talkback.zdnet.com/5208-12354-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=25501&messageID=479354&start=-1

feeds.feedburner.com/EdBott-WindowsandOfficeExpertise

www.robichaux.net/blog/2006/10/windows_vista_eula_no_virtual_hardware.php

digg.com/tech_news/A_sneaky_change_in_Windows_licensing_terms_Ed_Bott_s_Microsoft_Report

digg.com/users/randysouth

www.techmeme.com/061013/p32

MSFT needs to do a better job, of course, clarifying their EULA and final
licensing options, and right now among MSFT personnel I know there is some
confusion. Obviously licensure shouldn't be a counterintuitive puzzle. If
they want to make puzzles, they should work with the X-Box game development
teams to come up with them--but maybe their can be an X-box game called EULA
Purgatory with a lot of first person shooter mods for new Video cards and
"dual core/quad core 4MHz on the floor--dice on the mirror boxes.

CH

 

[Donald L McDaniel]

That was not the issue, I was replying to someone
saying that "You can only (practically) run one OS
at a time".

Steve

That really makes no sense as far as Virtualization software is concerned.
For example, with an Apple Intel PC, one may install Parallels Desktop for
Mac, and create an XP virtual machine, open it, and have the OS X desktop
on one display, with XP's desktop on another display, both at the same
time, and both having active applications.

I know this for a fact, since I do it all the time.

Donald
-------------------------------------------