Randall,

You couldn't have much windows sysadmin experience or you'd realize that requiring windows re-activation is a killer process that will make 95% of people throw their hands up and download microsoft's virtual server instead. The openoffice analogy is false. When was the last time you opened a word doc in open office and it asked you to re-activate windows? VMware's whitepaper is pretty compelling. If I were Microsoft I'd be pulling out the old dirty tricks bag too, if I had a billion $ competitor that my legal options hadn't had any affect on.

Clueless,

You're missing the point: The re-activation is triggered by the perceived change of hardware. In this case, it's virtual hardware, however, the principle is the same. Also note that, if it were the other way around, and Microsoft was importing VMDK files, the same re-activation would likely be triggered.

The point is: The behavior cited has nothing to do with virtualization, yet VMware is attempting to make it sound like a nefarious plot to thwart them. Give me a break!

And where is all the comparison to the restrictions on OS X? Exactly how many licenses allow for virtualization of OS X on Windows machine using either VMWare or Virtual PC....? hint:it's a round digit.

Randall, I'll grant you that the screenshot they show is just as you describe--a simple list of the requirements in order to run the download item in question. That's a fairly weak argument from VMware, in my opinion. But what of the meatier items, such as the specific language from the EULAs that prohibit the use of VHDs on non-Microsoft virtualization platforms, or the virtual machine mobility restrictions? These seem to be much more substantial, and valid, arguments.

Shawn: Indeed, everyone's quick to point fingers at Microsoft when Apple is practicing zero tolerance. Double standards - they're a way of life for some.

Scott: I'm not saying that none of VMware's gripes have any merit - though the VHD mobility restrictions could also be attributed to paranoia over piracy, among other things. And remember, the examples provided by VMware all reference Microsoft's VHD program, which is clearly defined as a demo/trialware-only scenario (see the FAQ for more info). In that context I would be inclined to give Microsoft some leeway since it's putting its Intellectual Property at risk. If/when I see evidence of them delivering fully licensed software, in a VHD format and with the same restrictions, I'll call them on it.

RCK

The EULA for the VHD demos have the following restrictions which make using them in VMware somewhat more difficult:

- you are not permitted to convert the VHD virtual disk to another format.

- NO ACTIVATION. To prevent its unlicensed use, the software contains activation enforcement technology. Because this is an evaluation-only license, you are not licensed to activate the software for any purpose even if it prompts you to do so.

mikeb: Again, these are demo apps provided as a trialware-type marketing tool for Microsoft. As such, it's hard to argue that they are somehow obligated to make it work seamlessly under VMware. As I've said before, if and when Microsoft starts to offer paid, licensed software - in a VHD format - with these same restrictions, I'll be the first to take them to task.

RCK

Excellent post Randall. I for one am sick of all these third party companies bitching about Microsoft not making it easier for their own company to make money. I mean bottom line, VMWare is just pissed that this will impact their ability to make sales. I don't for one minute believe they give a rats ass about the end users.

Randall -

Thanks for using the word "seamlessly" instead of "seemlessly." All hope is not yet lost.

Rob,

:-)

RCK

[Disclaimer: I'm an engineer at VMware, this post represents my own opinions, not those of the company, etc.]

Randall, I agree that it would be asking a lot of Microsoft to do the heavy lifting in order to solve or change their activation scheme to prevent .VHDs from deactivating themselves. However, it's not the technical objection that is the major concern. Even if we did the work ourselves, the bigger concern about the licensing restrictions that prevent us from doing this work.

IANAL, and I'm guessing you're not either, but the conservative interpretation of the EULA on the .VHD downloads makes it fairly clear that you're only allowed to run the .VHD images on Virtual Server.

It's similar to the restrictions Microsoft places on e.g. the DirectShow codecs in Windows; even if you have purchased a legal copy of Windows, it's a violation of the EULA to copy out the codecs and use them in mplayer on your Linux machine, because the EULA says the codecs must only be used on a Windows host.

I should also note that whether or not this would stand up in court is largely irrelevant, since all legal battles devolve into wars of attrition.

It would also be interesting to hear your thoughts on the Microsoft software support issue (cited in our whitepaper).

Ramesh: So far, the only part of your white paper that might stand-up to scrutiny is the restriction on reassignment of licenses (i.e. the "90 days" quote). Everything else is either misleading, subject to interpretation or tied specifically to their demo/trialware VHD program.

In the latter case, I can't really fault Microsoft for restricting when and how customers can deploy an *unlicensed* trial version of their software. To do otherwise would be to invite piracy on a grand scale - a possibility that Microsoft fears far more than the ascendency of VMware.

As I've said before, if and when Microsoft restricts the use of paid, *licensed* software to its own VHD format, I'll cry foul. Until then, it's just source grapes on VMware's part.

RCK

I have one point to make there and that is you argument falls over, because all a VM is, is a PC if you downloaded a Demo of windows 2003 you would not be restricted form installing it on a Dell, or a HP machine, or even a white box home build. Why should I be forced to utilse a inferior peice of software to run a demo, when I already have a virtualisation infrastructure in place.

It is obvious from the tone of your article you are not friendly to VMware and very MS centric. That is your choice, but it is a matter of fact that VMware virtualiation product are better and more advanced, feature rich and stable than MS's

To me it just smacks of protectionism (A thing the US s well known for)