Re: Can I install XP Home on a virtual PC without a licensing snafu Theo <theo[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> 6/26/2007 6:16:20 PM Although your rational may seem sound, it's really trying to split hairs. The EULA was written before virtual machines were practical for home use. The reality is that to install and use any version of Windows in a VM requires it to be Activated in the same manner as a non-VM installation and Microsoft only allows you to have one instance of a Product Key activated at any given time(Volume License is a different story). In Vista they have improved their tracking of keys to be better able to determine when the EULA might be violated. >>ruf1 wrote: I would argue that I am not violating 1.1 since it will be installed on the same machine and be a guest on the Vista >>machine only. So at no time will it be accessed by more >>that one processer on any singlework station, and it is legally installed on the machine that it is being used on. It is an OEM version so I can't do as Charlie suggests in the next post which would have been a viable solution had I purchased the retail box when I built the machine.

Re: Can I install XP Home on a virtual PC without a licensing snafu "John Blanton" <jlbjresquire[ at ]hotmail.com> 7/6/2007 10:44:15 AM Sounds like you have both OS's installed on the same hard drive partition, they should each be on their own partition. "Theo" <theo[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:upkZi4BuHHA.3476[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... [Quoted Text] > Although your rational may seem sound, it's really trying to split hairs. > The EULA was written before virtual machines were practical for home use. > The reality is that to install and use any version of Windows in a VM > requires it to be Activated in the same manner as a non-VM installation > and Microsoft only allows you to have one instance of a Product Key > activated at any given time(Volume License is a different story). In > Vista they have improved their tracking of keys to be better able to > determine when the EULA might be violated. > > > >>ruf1 wrote: > I would argue that I am not violating 1.1 since it will be installed on > the same machine and be a guest on the Vista > >>machine only. So at no time will it be accessed by more that one > >>processer on any singlework station, and it is > legally installed on the machine that it is being used on. It is an OEM > version so I can't do as Charlie suggests in the next post which would > have been a viable solution had I purchased the retail box when I built > the machine.