Windows 10 Activation, and Virtual Machines?

[Zarathustra[H]]

Hey all,

I have a question regarding how Windows 10's new license system reacts to being installed in virtual machines.

I am primarily a Linux user, but I do dual boot to windows for games.

In linux I have a virtualbox install of Windows 7, which I use - ironically - for the ESXi client to manage my ESXi server, and on the rare occasion I need something windows based, and don't feel like rebooting.

When I had Windows 7 both installed on bare metal, AND in my virtualbox image, windows 7 would somehow know that they were on the same physical machine, and it never tripped a reactivation.

Should I expect the same thing from Windows 10?

I have been very impressed by the very small installed storage space footprint of Windows 10, and would love to put it in my VM as well to save disk space, but I don't want to deal with constant reactivation problems.

The funny thing is that on my Linux desktop, with all the bells and whistles installed, something like 90% of the storage space is used by my Windows 7 virtualbox image

Appreciate your thoughts on this matter!

--Matt

 

[Eulogy]

Regardless of whether that technically works, I'm pretty sure that's against the terms of licensing. I'd have to refresh my memory on it, but I thought you couldn't use one license on two systems, even if one is virtual.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Regardless of whether that technically works, I'm pretty sure that's against the terms of licensing. I'd have to refresh my memory on it, but I thought you couldn't use one license on two systems, even if one is virtual.

Ah, Interesting. I never actually read up on it, as I always assumed that one system meant one physical system, which it is. I don't really consider a virtual machine a system...

That, and they would never be in use at the same time (this would be impossible).

I might try to pass through the raw partition and boot it in a VM off of that, but I'm sure this would cause some sort of problems with the core count, ram and emulated chipsets being different from hardware chipsets, etc.

Would it be against the license agreement to have two bare metal installs, on two different partitions of the same physical machine? That seems to be the closest comparison. At worst this must be a grey zone...

 

[Eulogy]

Like I said, I'm hazy on these details, especially outside an MSA. From what I (think I) remember, each "motherboard" is essentially what MS considers to be the system. In the VM, it has a hardware-abstracted motherboard.
I believe two installs on the same exact hardware (or two drives on the same hardware) would be OK. But a VM + Physical install with the same key not OK.

Probably would function, but we're "not allowed" to discuss that here really (if the above is correct)

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Probably would function, but we're "not allowed" to discuss that here really (if the above is correct)

I think as long as we keep it to "is it within the license, and if so how do I do it" we are fine.

Were it would be trouble would be if we go to the "no its not within the license, how do I fool activation" there would be trouble, and honestly I have no intent of going there, as I use my software legally

 

[kac77]

Hey all,

I have a question regarding how Windows 10's new license system reacts to being installed in virtual machines.

I am primarily a Linux user, but I do dual boot to windows for games.

In linux I have a virtualbox install of Windows 7, which I use - ironically - for the ESXi client to manage my ESXi server, and on the rare occasion I need something windows based, and don't feel like rebooting.

When I had Windows 7 both installed on bare metal, AND in my virtualbox image, windows 7 would somehow know that they were on the same physical machine, and it never tripped a reactivation.

Should I expect the same thing from Windows 10?

I have been very impressed by the very small installed storage space footprint of Windows 10, and would love to put it in my VM as well to save disk space, but I don't want to deal with constant reactivation problems.

The funny thing is that on my Linux desktop, with all the bells and whistles installed, something like 90% of the storage space is used by my Windows 7 virtualbox image

Appreciate your thoughts on this matter!

--Matt

Well if you are in Linux this is what I did.

Guide: GPU Passthrough Using KVM + LVM2 + Ubuntu Gnome - From Beginning to End

I would say though having them both going at the same time will is problematic because technically you have them installed on more than one config. I would just go with the guide I wrote above and call it a day.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Well if you are in Linux this is what I did.

Guide: GPU Passthrough Using KVM + LVM2 + Ubuntu Gnome - From Beginning to End

I would say though having them both going at the same time will is problematic because technically you have them installed on more than one config. I would just go with the guide I wrote above and call it a day.

Yeah, unfortunately no VT-D on the first stepping of the 3930k it was introduced in later steppings.

 

[Nate7311]

Time to upgrade the Proc!!

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Time to upgrade the Proc!!

Aww, but it hits 4.8Ghz with ease, 5.0 with some tweaking. Has been fantastic and still keeps up. (I probably won the silicon lottery with this one, considering how easy it has been to coverclock)

I have no problem with upgrading, but until I can pick something up that would be a significant performance jump, I'm not going to bite.

Another Windows License, if I have to get one, would be cheaper

 

[kac77]

Yeah, unfortunately no VT-D on the first stepping of the 3930k it was introduced in later steppings.

Man that sucks. I used to be in the same predicament as you. I had Windows in a VM in Virtualbox for quite sometime. I used it for special media tasks and to avoid trying to install a Citrix plugin under Ubuntu. Then I moved it to KVM which stopped the breakage that would sometimes happen on a kernel update. After that I decided to go all of the way because I got tired of dual booting in order to game. I've been loving the setup ever since.

This month I'm finally going to update my HTPC and turn that into the gaming box which also runs Mythtv and some apache applications. While buying another processor just for that seems like overkill. I can definitely say that not dual booting anymore makes life a whole lot easier.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Man that sucks. I used to be in the same predicament as you. I had Windows in a VM in Virtualbox for quite sometime. I used it for special media tasks and to avoid trying to install a Citrix plugin under Ubuntu. Then I moved it to KVM which stopped the breakage that would sometimes happen on a kernel update. After that I decided to go all of the way because I got tired of dual booting in order to game. I've been loving the setup ever since.

This month I'm finally going to update my HTPC and turn that into the gaming box which also runs Mythtv and some apache applications. While buying another processor just for that seems like overkill. I can definitely say that not dual booting anymore makes life a whole lot easier.

Nice,

Yeah, the server has VT-d, because I was shopping for it and new I needed it. Never thought I'd need VT-d on the desktop, so I didn't include it in my requirements.

Sandy-E was supposed to have VT-d at launch, but there was some bug, so they disabled it in the first stepping. Didn't get it until C2 (my stepping is C1)

Because I am curious, How have you found passing through the GPU's to perform? Comparable to running bare metal?

 

[CEpeep]

If I were you, I'd leave W7 installed in the virtual machine right now, even if you choose to update the primary install to W10. W7 has better performance in VMWare right now. Also, if the only reason you are booting a Windows VM is to manage ESXi, you should check out VMWare Workstation; it includes a native Linux ESXi management UI.

 

[kac77]

Because I am curious, How have you found passing through the GPU's to perform? Comparable to running bare metal?

Because of the way I passed it through there is a 10% - 15% performance impact. Apparently by using a different BIOS and altering the config a bit I can gain much of that back. i just haven't bothered with that yet. Overall I I can live with that until i get to it. Really if I hadn't benchmarked it I would have never known. It's definitely not apparent when inside the guest. Having a GTX 780@1080 probably helps as I haven't run into a situation yet where I was clamoring for more performance.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Like I said, I'm hazy on these details, especially outside an MSA. From what I (think I) remember, each "motherboard" is essentially what MS considers to be the system. In the VM, it has a hardware-abstracted motherboard.
I believe two installs on the same exact hardware (or two drives on the same hardware) would be OK. But a VM + Physical install with the same key not OK.

Probably would function, but we're "not allowed" to discuss that here really (if the above is correct)

I took a look at it today, and you are indeed right.

Makes no sense at all. Seems like an arbitrary limitation. I don't feel like using the same copy bare metal, and in a VM on the same machine for dual booting purposes would violate the spirit of the license (they are on the same physical system, and only one instance is ever running at the same time) but MS in their wisdom wrote the license agreement the way they did.

a. License. The software is licensed, not sold. Under this agreement, we grant you the right to install and run one instance of the software on your device (the licensed device), for use by one person at a time, so long as you comply with all the terms of this agreement. Updating or upgrading from non-genuine software with software from Microsoft or authorized sources does not make your original version or the updated/upgraded version genuine, and in that situation, you do not have a license to use the software.
b. Device. In this agreement, “device” means a hardware system (whether physical or virtual) with an internal storage device capable of running the software. A hardware partition or blade is considered to be a device.

and;

(iv) Use in a virtualized environment. This license allows you to install only one instance of the software for use on one device, whether that device is physical or virtual. If you want to use the software on more than one virtual device, you must obtain a separate license for each instance.

They either didn't envision people like me, who dual boot, but still want some windows access when booted in Linux, don't care, or actively are trying to harm people using 3rd party operating systems.

 

[Eulogy]

Yeah, it is pretty lame. Like I said earlier, I believe it would work / function... and if it asks for activation, I would venture to guess that a call on the activation line would get it activated as well. Hypothetically speaking, of course

 

[Jaymzkerten]

They either didn't envision people like me, who dual boot, but still want some windows access when booted in Linux, don't care, or actively are trying to harm people using 3rd party operating systems.

More than likely it is actually because of virtualization that they are trying to prevent people from using the same license to activate multiple VMs on a single piece of hardware, since you could hypothetically have a very powerful server act as a hypervisor and host any number of VMs on that. While you only want to activate 1 physical 1 virtual, someone else would try to take it to greater extremes and activate many more VMs on a single piece of physical hardware.

 

[Thuleman]

Makes no sense at all. Seems like an arbitrary limitation. I don't feel like using the same copy bare metal, and in a VM on the same machine for dual booting purposes would violate the spirit of the license (they are on the same physical system, and only one instance is ever running at the same time) but MS in their wisdom wrote the license agreement the way they did.

You can't virtualize Microsoft desktop OSes without an additional VDA license. That does actually make good sense to me, see below. Having said that, people do it for home use all the time and I doubt MS really cares about you running it virtualized as long as you have a legit copy. You aren't licensed to do so, but reality and EULA frequently diverge on this.

They either didn't envision people like me, who dual boot, but still want some windows access when booted in Linux, don't care, or actively are trying to harm people using 3rd party operating systems.

They want to get paid.
I want them to get paid, because like everyone else some of my retirement hedge funds are undoubtedly invested in MSFT. So please, stop stealing from my retirement.

 

[oneforspeed]

I tried the uprgrade on a Windows 7 VM, that has a legal license, and It won't finish. I haven't followed through with it because it was merely a test. I would have restored back to Windows 7 after playing with it anyway. Anyone else had this issue?

 

[rtangwai]

I tried the uprgrade on a Windows 7 VM, that has a legal license, and It won't finish. I haven't followed through with it because it was merely a test. I would have restored back to Windows 7 after playing with it anyway. Anyone else had this issue?

Same here - didn't like the virtual video card assigned by ESXi 6 even though I had enabled 3D and got DirectX working.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Interesting.

Since I posted this I purchased another 7 pro license, and it upgraded and activated just fine inside virtualbox.

 

[oneforspeed]

Interesting.

Since I posted this I purchased another 7 pro license, and it upgraded and activated just fine inside virtualbox.

Zarathustra,
Are you running your guest additions in the WDDM version or with Direct3D support installed safe mode?

Like rtangwai mine failed for the virtual video card.

Thanks,
onefor

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Zarathustra,
Are you running your guest additions in the WDDM version or with Direct3D support installed safe mode?

Like rtangwai mine failed for the virtual video card.

Thanks,
onefor

I can't remember how I set it up. I will take a look when. I get home.

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

I can't remember how I set it up. I will take a look when. I get home.

Sorry, forgot about this.

Here is my setup. (click for bigger)

 

[oneforspeed]

Zarathustra,

Thanks for the update. Do you recall if you installed the 3d graphics option, during the installation of the guest additions, in safe mode or in standard mode. I created a new Windows 7 VM to test this. I think my old vm had a corruption in the directx install. Don't worry about it if you can't recall. I am testing both. If I figure it out, before your reply, I'll post my findings.

Thanks again,
one4

 

[Zarathustra[H]]

Zarathustra,

Thanks for the update. Do you recall if you installed the 3d graphics option, during the installation of the guest additions, in safe mode or in standard mode. I created a new Windows 7 VM to test this. I think my old vm had a corruption in the directx install. Don't worry about it if you can't recall. I am testing both. If I figure it out, before your reply, I'll post my findings.

Thanks again,
one4

I honestly can't remember. The "Enable 3D Acceleration" box in settings is checked though.

I don't think I installed the guest additions until AFTER the upgrade though.

I installled Win7, upgraded, then wiped it and did a clean Win10 install, and THEN installed the guest additions after it was activated. Not sure if the order of installing the additions has any impact.

Oh, and sorry, just noticed the full sized version was my full desktop. Meant to crop that to the related section, must have accidentally uploaded the full version instead of the cropped one.

 

[oneforspeed]

Thanks that is all useful information. I will dabble and post back if I have any revelations.

 

[oneforspeed]

The current versions of virtualbox allow the installation of the 3d capable guest addition without installing in safe mode. I played with a new installation and this procedure worked for me. http://www.howtogeek.com/124479/how-to-enable-3d-acceleration-and-use-windows-aero-in-virtualbox/

When I say it worked it appears to have no flaws but I haven't tested it with an intense game. 3d screen savers work and the stock microsoft games (freecell, solitaire bla bla). When I have time I will test further.

To stay on topic here I will install windows 10 upgrade after I finish the 190+ updates for Windows 7 and save a snapshot for reversion. I'll report back soon.