Windows XP activation for Virtual Machine

[Alias]

Unfortunately, yes it is.

No, it isn't.

< You may not install two copies,

The OP isn't doing that.

even on the
same machine, whether you're using a VM or just dual booting.

He only has it installed in a VM. The host is not XP but Ubuntu.

Buy a second copy.

Not nice, Ken. One copy, one machine, which is exactly what the OP is doing.

Alias

 

[A Friend of Yours]

Thanks everybody; I think I should activate it.

I don't want to be using a pirated software... and neither do I want my copy
of XP to be no longer legal.

Thanks
Omer

 

[Alister]

Just because XP "thinks" something is hardware doesn't mean that it
actually *is* hardware.

I know that FFS, but we're talking about XP activation here - and XP
activation is based on a hash created in part by what hardware the
software thinks it's on.

Alister

 

[Twayne]

No, it isn't.

< You may not install two copies,

The OP isn't doing that.


He only has it installed in a VM. The host is not XP but Ubuntu.


Not nice, Ken. One copy, one machine, which is exactly what the OP is
doing.
Alias

One copy, TWO installs, means two licenses. Read the EULA. Doesn't
matter that it's the same hadware.

 

[Daave]

One copy, TWO installs, means two licenses. Read the EULA. Doesn't
matter that it's the same hadware.

OP stated there is only one install of XP. Seems unreasonable to require
two licenses for one install on the same hardware.

 

[Daave]

I know that FFS, but we're talking about XP activation here - and XP
activation is based on a hash created in part by what hardware the
software thinks it's on.

TINW. And just because something won't activate automatically over the
Net doesn't mean it can't be activated. That is why Alias said, "In a
worse case scenario, the OP can call for activation."

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I have a windows xp sp2 installation CD which I got with my laptop.
Now, I have installed a different OS and installed xp from that CD
in VirtualBox.
But XP asks for product activation now... Do I need to purchase the
Windows (again; sort of)? If no, what will happen when I want to
switch back to Windows XP on my bare machine?

<snipped>

One copy, TWO installs, means two licenses. Read the EULA. Doesn't
matter that it's the same hadware.

Okay, except I don't see what that has to do with the OPs issue.

Elsewhere in the conversation, the OP makes the following statement, "This
is not XP, it is Ubuntu that I have installed on the laptop. And as I need
to do some assignments and course work in C#, I need windows. So, installed
VirtualBox and installed XP in it."

So the OP received Windows XP with the Laptop (OEM). The OP erased Windows
XP and installed Ubuntu on the laptop. The OP installed VirtualBox on
Ubuntu and installed the Windows XP they received with the laptop in a
virtual machine via VirtualBox. One licence, one install - from a physical
standpoint - on the same machine.

 

[Twayne]

OP stated there is only one install of XP. Seems unreasonable to
require two licenses for one install on the same hardware.

Agreed, except that it's two installs. One onto the hard drive and the
other into the VM is considered a second install by MS. MS gets to call
the rules since they own the software and can put any requirements on it
they want to.
Back in "the day" MS has respectable license policies but no more.
The customer hasn't mattered to them since the day they decided they
could live off auto-obsoletion and raping people for their wares.
Absolute power and all that.

Cheers,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

<snipped>


Okay, except I don't see what that has to do with the OPs issue.

Elsewhere in the conversation, the OP makes the following statement,
"This is not XP, it is Ubuntu that I have installed on the laptop.
And as I need to do some assignments and course work in C#, I need
windows. So, installed VirtualBox and installed XP in it."

So the OP received Windows XP with the Laptop (OEM). The OP erased
Windows XP and installed Ubuntu on the laptop. The OP installed
VirtualBox on Ubuntu and installed the Windows XP they received with
the laptop in a virtual machine via VirtualBox. One licence, one
install - from a physical standpoint - on the same machine.

Hmm, apparently I missed that; for whatever reason I thought it was a
machine with Windows on it. It works fine that way, doesn't it? ONE
INSTALL one time on one machine. Nothing doubled up re the OS that way.

If the OP is still following any of this: Seems like that situation
should be perfectly fine - I badly mis-assesed the setup. A VM running
on Linux with XP on the VM would be a perfectly fine situation.
Even if the VM were lost, reinstalling XP back into it would be the
same as reinstalling it on any machine in that case. Personally I'd
multi-boot, considering it's only one installation of XP to consider,
though. Unless again I've missed something.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[Alias]

Hmm, apparently I missed that; for whatever reason I thought it was a
machine with Windows on it. It works fine that way, doesn't it? ONE
INSTALL one time on one machine. Nothing doubled up re the OS that way.

If the OP is still following any of this: Seems like that situation
should be perfectly fine - I badly mis-assesed the setup. A VM running
on Linux with XP on the VM would be a perfectly fine situation.
Even if the VM were lost, reinstalling XP back into it would be the
same as reinstalling it on any machine in that case. Personally I'd
multi-boot, considering it's only one installation of XP to consider,
though. Unless again I've missed something.

HTH,

Twayne`

No, now you've got it ;-)

Alias

 

[Daave]

Agreed, except that it's two installs. One onto the hard drive and
the other into the VM is considered a second install by MS.

The install on the hard drive is Linux, not Windows.

OP has a license to run one instance of XP on his PC and that is exactly
what he is doing. You can split hairs and state that he is only entitled
to do so if he wipes the hard drive and installs XP on it, and I
wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft would agree with your interpretation
of the EULA, but another equally valid interpretation is that OP is in
compliance with it. Your argument would hold more water if there were
two instances of XP, but that is not the case.