Author Topic: Possbly Stupid VM Question  (Read 691 times)

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,377
  • I'm an Extremist!
Possbly Stupid VM Question
« on: September 13, 2013, 11:27:18 AM »
A couple of my VMs run on XP, mostly because I had the spare full install versions hanging around the house. With End of Life around the corner for XP, I wanted to make at least one of the VMs into a Win7 (or, I can't believe I'm saying this) Win8 machine.

I have no spare full installs of Win7 available. I want to save some money. Are there any negative implications to putting an OEM install on a VM versus a universal full install? I know there should be no issues on the initial install, but if I want to wipe and reinstall? I'm unsure as to how OEMs lock to hardware versus how VMs read hardware. I've only used OEM versions on work machines that I setup as data collectors, so the install stays with the device until the hardware craps out.

Before anyone says to use it, I already run a couple of Linux VMs. :P
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,989
Re: Possbly Stupid VM Question
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2013, 11:48:32 AM »
What hypervisor are you using?

Windows can tell if the hypervisor back-end changes, for a subordinate guest VM.  And it'll prompt you to re-activate, just as if you cloned a hard drive or replaced a motherboard.  Microsoft VirtualPC and HyperV and VMWare's software both allow/encourage this behavior.  VirtualBox used to be a bit more flexible in this regard, but Oracle has taken over development of that tool and I think they also have been enabling the license police.

I'm of the opinion that if I bought a license and choose to apply it to a VM, I should have 100% portability of that installation to any hardware I want, though licensing of the physical hardware OS is a responsibility independent of the guest VM's license.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 46,377
  • I'm an Extremist!
Re: Possbly Stupid VM Question
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2013, 11:50:56 AM »
What hypervisor are you using?

Oh yeah, sorry, using Virtualbox. Host machine is Win7.
"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,989
Re: Possbly Stupid VM Question
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2013, 12:03:11 PM »
I think the client OS "integration features" are what enable this detection of hypervisor changes.  Just like a suite of drivers for mobo, nic, etc.  Otherwise the guest OS will just generic HAL drivers and should be unable to gather any unique identifier of its hypervisor host.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

GigaBuist

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,345
    • http://www.justinbuist.org/blog/
Re: Possbly Stupid VM Question
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2013, 10:22:34 PM »
I have done OEM installs of XP discs to a Virtualbox VM multiple times.  I found no restriction problems.  These were licences purchased by us (not sure how my brother did that) for install on our own physical hardware.  Forward 5-6 years later and I ditched all of the physical XP machines and reused the activation keys on VM installs.