Calling Windows 7 people... get my faith back in MS.

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:20

Basically I have a fully legit code for W7 x64 Pro off MSDN from my Engineering Based Uni.

Now I require this to be able to be booted natively (Bootcamp) and virtualised (VMware fusion) depending on my work/gaming needs.

Windows XP has been installed with a legit copy and a legit code and it's happy enough.

Now, I did this:

1. Installed Windows 7 x64 on a partition, activated it fine, installed some apps, everyone is happy.
2. Installed the latest VMware, installed VMWare tools.
3. Activated in VMWare tools using the same code as No. 1 (as im not going to buy another code... it's the same computer!).
4. Every time I boot into Bootcamp (IE Natively) it asks to reactivate because apparently im the victim of software piracy!!

Now, this is bloody ridiculous and is exactly the reason I really hate Windows and I would like a way to fix this problem before I give up totally because I can live without Windows 7. I can live with a less pretty XP but one that doesn't argue the toss because it's virtualised on the same computer.

Any ideas on how to fix the issue? (PS: Im NOT buying Windows 7 Retail when I have 4 free codes (2x 64, 2x32) to use)

Cheers

manic_man · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:30

It's entirely correct if you think about what your VMWare PC is.

When you setup a VMWare PC, it is considered entirely separate to the host machine, it has a different BIOS, different hardware IDs etc. So when you activated the second time, the activation system will have generated a new activation string based on your virtual PCs hardware config, which in turn won't have matched the one MS had on file.

As the MSDN licenses are effectively OEM (i.e. single machine allowance) you have therefore exceeded your single machine limit for that license.

What I would suggest is that you activate using a different code for your second machine (I believe you can enter a new code as part of the "Activate me via telephone" option built into Windows.)

OR decide which "machine" you actually want to use the license on, and if its the one that is currently claiming to be pirated, call up the free 0800 number MS provide and explain what happened to the guy from India who will almost certainly just issue you with a new code to activate (I have never been refused before when I have tried to correct this sort of thing).

I'm not sure why XP isn't complaining too, AFAIK its activation system should be similar. All I can think is that your XP license might be multi-machine, or it might simply be a volume license. Either way, activation back in XPs day was more rudimentary.

Ultimately though, I don't think you can blame MS for this one, they clearly define the terms of your license in lots of different places and you really can't blame them for protecting their IP!

Burnsy2023 · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:31

Your code (and therefore licence) is based on each installation, not machine. Use another code for the VM.

Burnsy2023 · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:32

manic_man said:
As the MSDN licenses are effectively OEM (i.e. single machine allowance) you have therefore exceeded your single machine limit for that license.

No, MSDN licences are effectively MSDN licences. They are different from both OEM and retail. As for "single machine allowance" as you put it, that covers pretty much every Windows licence.

manic_man · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:35

Burnsy2023 said:
No, MSDN licences are effectively MSDN licences. They are different from both OEM and retail. As for "single machine allowance" as you put it, that covers pretty much every Windows licence.

Perhaps I should have been more specific.

I meant single machine hardware ID allowance.

AFAIK, a retail license will allow you to activate one machine ID at any one time. An OEM or MSDN (I have used MSDN licenses for quite a while due to my educational links) license allows one hardware ID to be linked to that license, and then that's it. So if the machine exploded and you needed to re-install on a totally new one, the MSDN or OEM license would not re-activate without you asking for it specifically, whereas the Retail license would just revoke the old hardware ID and allow the new one to become current.

Or have I misunderstood?

EDIT: I see what your saying, you're saying that I could not use the same license for the same OS on the same machine at the same time. I hadn't even really considered that option, but I guess it is pertinent to the OPs question too assuming they think that their VM machine and their host machine are considered one and the same (which of course, they aren't). So I couldn't, for example, install x86 and x64 Windows 7 using my MSDN license on the same machine, which also seems reasonable.

Makhaira · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:36

It's operating entirely reasonably, just use another code.

On your hardware point, remember that a VM creates virtual hardware to spoof the OS. So it's hardly surprising it views it as a different machine!

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:44

Burnsy2023 said:
Your code (and therefore licence) is based on each installation, not machine. Use another code for the VM.

That doesn't help at all. As then when I boot natively it will complain, I have tried this

Also my MacBook Pro has the same setup, using the other x64 code so I don't have any x64 spare and I don't see why I should anyway!!

It's running the same installation on the same computer, absolutely ridiculous if MS think im going to buy a Retail code when the computer science guys at my uni virtualise for development purposes!!!

This is why I love OS X, not ******* about when you need to get work done and it doesn't complain if I boot my Mac Pro off my MacBook Pro's HD or visa versa.

Thanks anyway guys.

Makhaira · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:48

Concorde Rules said:
It's running the same installation on the same computer,

You're virtualising it! The very nature of this means that the virtualised OS is blissfully unaware of anything outside of the Virtual Machine.

If you are using different codes on the VM and your dual-boot install, then there's something else awry if it is causing you to reactivate on each boot.

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 12:59

Makhaira said:
You're virtualising it! The very nature of this means that the virtualised OS is blissfully unaware of anything outside of the Virtual Machine.

If you are using different codes on the VM and your dual-boot install, then there's something else awry if it is causing you to reactivate on each boot.

Well normally, I would agree, however the integration that can be achieved now and the VT-x/VT-d allowing greater direct access to hardware now means it's getting closer and closer to running natively, the system is running bridged networking and grabs a network not a virtualised IP, it has access to all of my folders and hard-disks, has reasonably decent access to my GPU, its 90% of the CPU performance.

I just find it totally unacceptable that you need TWO codes to do this, if I wanted to run OS X on a different machine I can, if I want to virtualise OS X within OS X, I can (You can for development purposes IIRC).

As for the two codes idea, I will have to give it another go at some point then as I suppose my MacBook Pro can use x32.

Just a quick question, does anyone actually *support* the use of activation codes etc when it's broken so easily!?

richb93 · 19 Aug 2010 at 13:14

Nothing happened here, honest

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 13:17

richb93 said:
PROTIP: Mentioning you cracked software = not good.

Happy now?

csmager · 19 Aug 2010 at 13:35

Concorde Rules said:
I just find it totally unacceptable that you need TWO codes to do this, if I wanted to run OS X on a different machine I can, if I want to virtualise OS X within OS X, I can (You can for development purposes IIRC).

You can run Windows on a different machine (with the right license), you just can't run it on two at once - or people would buy one copy and install it on every PC in their house. You can also virtualise Windows within Windows on one license - but I think this may only apply to Windows Server, as your average home user doesn't really have a use for this.

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 13:57

csmager said:
You can run Windows on a different machine (with the right license), you just can't run it on two at once - or people would buy one copy and install it on every PC in their house. You can also virtualise Windows within Windows on one license - but I think this may only apply to Windows Server, as your average home user doesn't really have a use for this.

No but OS X wouldn't bat an eyelid if I wanted to do what I do with W7 atm.

It's totally unacceptable for a totally legit user to be buggered about like this.

W7 is not worth the cost, (£165) for Retail Pro x64. I've bought every OS X system since 10.2 for less than that and it's a better system in my opinion!!

csmager · 19 Aug 2010 at 13:59

To be fair to MS, you can't run OS X on anything but a Mac. And you can't get a Mac without an OS X license. It's understandable that their 'product activation' is not exactly at Microsoft's paranoid levels.

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 14:17

csmager said:
To be fair to MS, you can't run OS X on anything but a Mac. And you can't get a Mac without an OS X license. It's understandable that their 'product activation' is not exactly at Microsoft's paranoid levels.

True however when it starts interfering with legit users experiences of the system then it's time to rethink their strategy?

All this problem does is make me want to use W7 less! Not more! And thats not really a huge business proposition if your potential future customers don't buy your software!!!

SiriusB · 19 Aug 2010 at 14:39

How is it interfering? MS requires a separate license for each separate installation of its software. Microsoft have already provided a way for developers to run Windows in many different configurations - Technet and MSDN.

It is not unreasonable for you to need a second license for your VM. It doesn't matter how integrated the VM is, it is still technically a different computer. The technology to directly access the CPU is to allow better VM performance. Everything else about the VM is virtual. Virtual mobo, virtual RAM, virtual HDD, virtual everything.

As for your assertion it is not a huge business proposition - you are wrong. Businesses either have volume licensing or make use of Technet/MSDN as already mentioned.

There could be a way around it. There are ways, with certain VM software, to run a native installation as a Virtual Machine. Though it is somewhat convoluted and I couldn't comment on its stability [especially when switching back and forth] and is probably still dubious on the licensing front.

theheyes · 19 Aug 2010 at 14:40

I wouldn’t say the lax protection of OSX was a feature as such; it’s just a convenient consequence of how Apple earns their money and it’ll be in the EULA somewhere. You can bet your house if Apple were losing serious money through people installing OSX willy nilly they’d bring in a similar activation scheme. As it stands, it’s not worth the effort and expense.

On the other hand if you try to run/sell OSX on non-Mac hardware they’ll come down on you like a ton of bricks - because that’s where the money is.

I did exactly the same thing when Bootcamp very first came out in beta, and yeah, it did **** me off slightly but after thinking about it for 5 minutes it made sense and is correct.

Masterdog · 19 Aug 2010 at 14:48

Concorde Rules said:
True however when it starts interfering with legit users experiences of the system then it's time to rethink their strategy?

All this problem does is make me want to use W7 less! Not more! And thats not really a huge business proposition if your potential future customers don't buy your software!!!

You're in a pretty specific situation tho. The activation isn't draconian enough to put off that many customers - I'd bet MS get more customers by preventing piracy than they lose through putting people off.

FreeStream · 19 Aug 2010 at 15:34

SiriusB said:
How is it interfering? MS requires a separate license for each separate installation of its software. Microsoft have already provided a way for developers to run Windows in many different configurations - Technet and MSDN.

It is not unreasonable for you to need a second license for your VM. It doesn't matter how integrated the VM is, it is still technically a different computer. The technology to directly access the CPU is to allow better VM performance. Everything else about the VM is virtual. Virtual mobo, virtual RAM, virtual HDD, virtual everything.

Technically to the system, but it is not actually, which is the point that makes me annoyed!!

If it was a totally separate VM (As in Windows 7 was installed twice) then I'd agree. However it is not. It boots from the same files on the same partition on the same hard disk on the same hardware and even ATi Tray Tool errors saying no ATi hardware (which proves the integration isn't perfect however).

Either way I've fixed it and it's now working perfectly, shame I had to use 4 licenses and will have to go through this whole stupid process again when the MP and MBP are upgraded

Masterdog said:
You're in a pretty specific situation tho. The activation isn't draconian enough to put off that many customers - I'd bet MS get more customers by preventing piracy than they lose through putting people off.

For example I had my Mac Pro swapped a while back, I had to phone up from my mobile to activate it because the mobo serial number had changed [IE same hardware, just newer], how can you say THAT isn't draconian?
Edit: Hard-disks, GPU and DVD-Drives were swapped between the machines so it wasn't them who did anything to the activation

Im not so sure tbh. 90% of the people on this forum would be able to google the issue and find the youtube video showing the one-click required to remove the 'WAT' activation thingy whatever it is

Also I know of computer illiterate people who have managed it too, so I wouldn't be so sure.

However with no hard figures from people other than Microsoft we can't really comment :confused:

:/

SiriusB · 19 Aug 2010 at 16:50

Concorde Rules said:
Technically to the system, but it is not actually, which is the point that makes me annoyed!!

If it was a totally separate VM (As in Windows 7 was installed twice) then I'd agree. However it is not. It boots from the same files on the same partition on the same hard disk on the same hardware and even ATi Tray Tool errors saying no ATi hardware (which proves the integration isn't perfect however).

Therefore it is a different computer. Which VM software are you using? All the VM software I have used has a very small subset of hardware that it emulates. It may have direct access to stuff like HDD and CD/DVD, but what about the motherboard? Does your VM software accurate emulate your MBPs motherboard precisely?

Either way I've fixed it and it's now working perfectly, shame I had to use 4 licenses and will have to go through this whole stupid process again when the MP and MBP are upgraded

As above, this is what Technet and MSDN licenses are for. Quite why you need 2 native and 2 VMs across two machines I have no idea, but you have to work around that.

For example I had my Mac Pro swapped a while back, I had to phone up from my mobile to activate it because the mobo serial number had changed [IE same hardware, just newer], how can you say THAT isn't draconian?

MS considers the motherboard to be the system. Change the motherboard for anything but an identical board and it is no longer the same system. Newer is not the same, therefore new system and reactivation required. Windows generally ignores other hardware changes, unless you upgrade/change everything which may also trigger reactivation.