Vm and Protected Boot (not UEFI)

[jimbo45]

Hi there

There's some discussion on at W10 Forum over whether Ms is insisting that future OS'es will have to have Protected boot FORCEABLY enabled i.e no option but to have it on. (NOT TALKING ABOUT UEFI).

This surely will pose a problem for the vast majority of us running VM's --there's no problem using UEFI even on a non UEFI machine in a VM but I haven't seen any VM's that can set the the protected boot mechanism in their "Virtual Bioses".

For large corporates using large scale Virtual Desktop integration - this could also be a big problem too.

In the light of this do you think that Protected boot will be enforced in future OS'es. An awful lot of people would have to get rid of their hardware and using a VM would become complex if not impossible --especially if you wanted to move the VM around on to different machines or HOST OS'es.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Layback Bear]

Just my opinion Jimbo.

Microsoft is going to make it as hard as possible to use VM's in any fashion unless it's something they sell.

Microsoft want people to use Microsoft Clouds not VM.
Another way of putting it.
If one wants to run something in a VM just join another Microsoft Cloud and do what you use to do using a VM.

VM's don't make Microsoft any money. They want money and control.

When one looks around all the candy that one see about Clouds you will find the sour pickles that nobody talks about.

 

[logicearth]

I don't know where you are getting the idea that SecureBoot is going to be forced on. The recent update that everyone is overreacting to (like they always do) is that they are removing the restriction of SecureBoot and leaving it up to the OEMs, if they want it on or off, or take away the user's choice it is now on the OEMs.

Further more, Virtual Machines make Microsoft a lot of money, just because you put Windows into a VM does not mean you don't have to pay for a license. Throwing up a test machine in a VM if fine, but running a production system needs a valid license. Second, Microsoft offers their own virtualization platform, Hyper-V.

I just don't get where you guys are getting this....bad information.

Speaking on which Windows Azure, the cloud platform that supposedly Microsoft wants everyone on. Runs on virtualization. Heck you can run your own Linux VMs on Windows Azure, so again I don't get where you think Microsoft is trying to make it hard to use VMs....

 

[jimbo45]

I don't know where you are getting the idea that SecureBoot is going to be forced on. The recent update that everyone is overreacting to (like they always do) is that they are removing the restriction of SecureBoot and leaving it up to the OEMs, if they want it on or off, or take away the user's choice it is now on the OEMs.

Further more, Virtual Machines make Microsoft a lot of money, just because you put Windows into a VM does not mean you don't have to pay for a license. Throwing up a test machine in a VM if fine, but running a production system needs a valid license. Second, Microsoft offers their own virtualization platform, Hyper-V.

I just don't get where you guys are getting this....bad information.

Speaking on which Windows Azure, the cloud platform that supposedly Microsoft wants everyone on. Runs on virtualization. Heck you can run your own Linux VMs on Windows Azure, so again I don't get where you think Microsoft is trying to make it hard to use VMs....

Hi there

I NEVER said that you don't pay for a license if you are using a VM -- Windows is licensed PER COPY whether used on a VM or not -so that's an irrelevance.

However using a VM on a different computer is NOT against the EULA if the Virtual Hardware is IDENTICAL to the other computer and you are NOT running BOTH copies concurrently.

You CAN use Windows (non OEM) on a different PHYSICAL machine too - OK it needs to be activated again -- normally no problem - but you aren't allowed to run BOTH copies concurrently.

Note also HYPER-V only runs on a WINDOWS Host -- things like VMWARE and VBOX can run Windows VM's on Linux.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[logicearth]

And it will work just fine. I don't see why you are concerned about this "Protected Boot" whatever that is. Running Windows in a VM environment is completely supported by Microsoft. Moving it from computer to computer in the same VM environment is not going to cause you issues. Switching VM environments will likely require reactivation as they have different hardware signatures. But for all intents and purpose, Microsoft is not stupid, they are not going to prevent something they use themselves.

 

[Layback Bear]

From post #5 logicearth

Switching VM environments will likely require reactivation as they have different hardware signatures.

From post #1 by jimbo45

An awful lot of people would have to get rid of their hardware and using a VM would become complex if not impossible --especially if you wanted to move the VM around on to different machines or HOST OS'es.

That is why I posted this in my post #2

Microsoft is going to make it as hard as possible to use VM's in any fashion unless it's something they sell.

Now can a VM be used from a Cloud?
I don't know I don't use VM's.

As usual I do have an opinion but no concrete answers.

 

[logicearth]

Moving a VM around onto different machines or HOST OS'es are not going to be an issue. It will be an issue if you change the VM environment. By that I mean, going from Hyper-V to Vmware, to VirualBox, etc. Changing where the VM is running is not going to affect it because it still running in the same virtual environment.

But, how is Microsoft making it hard to use Windows in a VM? I have seen no evidence to suggest they are. (And Microsoft does sell VM software and the like.)

 

[Layback Bear]

Would it be fare to say if one uses Microsoft VM software going from Host to Host could be easier when using Microsoft operating systems.

Just a question. No harm implied.