Licensing and technical questions on Hyper-V, MacOSX Server, etc.

MacGuffin

I've Googled and searched, and I've asked some so called "Microsoft Experts", and I'm getting conflicting answers to my questions. I'm hoping someone on this forum has tried something similar before and can point me in the right direction. I have two situations where I'd like to use Microsoft Hyper-V Server but I'm unsure on the license and technical limits on doing this.

The first situation is that I have a couple of customers that want me to help them set up a web server. These customers are Microsoft centric and would be more comfortable if I gave them a solution that ran on a Microsoft operating system. In both cases I'd like to run open source software for the web site. This would be Apache, MySQL, PHP, and other software solutions along that line. When it goes to production it might be IIS and MS-SQL but the rest will remain open source.

I tried setting up a XAMP software package on Hyper-V server but it failed. I believe this is because it was expecting some graphics libraries that do not exist on a Server Core install. I can probably get it working if I use a less GUI intensive package. I doubt that Apache, MySQL, or PHP need anything beyond what Hyper-V Server provides but I could be mistaken.

Is there some technical limitation in Hyper-V Server that would prevent me from running a XAMP server stack? I suspect there might be some licensing restriction from using this in a production environment but is there something in the Microsoft license agreement that would keep me from doing this in a testing or demonstration situation? Can someone help me boil down the legalese in the license agreement?

The customers are cost conscious (aren't we all?) and would appreciate not having to buy a Microsoft server license to run the web server. Other solutions that come to mind is a Windows desktop license as the traffic is not expected to require the hardware that only a server operating system would support. Of course a free (as in speech) operating system would work but that means a learning curve for those that need to maintain the site.

The second situation is a more traditional virtualization environment where I'll be running multiple instances of multiple operating systems for my own training and amusement. This gives questions that are mostly of a licensing nature.

When it comes to Microsoft it appears I can use the server operating systems to do what I want so long as it's for evaluation and education. I'll be time limited with the evaluation license but that is an inconvenience rather than a show stopper like above. To avoid this inconvenience I thought I might use a desktop OS, like Windows 7 Ultimate which I already have, or Hyper-V Server.

The question is, assuming I can overcome any technical issues, are there licensing issues in using Windows 7 or Hyper-V Server on virtual machines? Can I use the same Windows 7 license on the host and in an emulated environment on that same host? How about multiple emulated instances of Windows 7? Is there some limitation on how many instances of Hyper-V Server I can run?

Same questions comes for MacOSX Server. I'd like to run multiple instances of MacOSX on an Apple host, is there some licensing restriction? How to I make it all legal? I read on the VMWare site that one is allowed to run two emulated instances of MacOSX Server on a MacOSX Server host with one license. Where did this come from? I saw nothing like this while searching the Apple website.

My third question is an odd ball one, nothing to do with emulation really. I had a number of mice die on me recently. While digging through my spare equipment I found a handful of old serial mice. Is there some way I can get these serial mice to work in Windows 7 or Sever 2008? I'd like to wear these out before I throw them away. It would not only save me a few bucks but also make me feel better about the amount of electronic waste I'm creating.

ptilsen

I don't understand the Microsoft question being about Hyper-V. You've indicated you think it has to do with server core, but that has nothing to do with Hyper-V. Your guest does not need to run server core. I really doubt Hyper-V is the issue. Unless I am misunderstanding you, and you are trying to install these components on the host machine, which makes no sense. You really wouldn't want to put anything on the host other than Hyper-V or another hypervisor product.

A side note: Nothing you've described involves emulation. This is all virtualization. The key difference is that emulators emulate the processor architecture. Virtualization solutions run virtual OS instances using a mixture of passed-through and emulated hardware components, but on the same processor architecture that the guest OS is expecting (CPU and RAM resources are passed through to the guest). Basilisk II is a class Mac emulator for Windows, for example, as it emulates the old Power architecture. DOSBox is also an emulator, as 32-bit and 64-bit x86 processors do not actually execute 16-bit processes identically to a 286 or similar, emulation being required for true compatibility. Anyway, the point is the vSphere and Hyper-V are not emulators (even though they technical emulate storage controllers, NICs, and other hardware). Think of emulators as platform emulators and virtualization software as component emulators.

You would need a license for every Winodws 7 instance you use. Hyper-V on Server 2008 R2 does not entitle you to guest licenses of 7, nor does Windows 7 entitle you to guest licenses of itself. Server 2008 R2 Standard entitles you to one guest license, provided you use the host license for nothing but managing the virtual machines, which essentially means just Hyper-V. Enterprise gives you four guest instances per license per host, while Datacenter gives you unlimited guest instances per license per host. Again, none of these include Windows 7. Windows 7 enterprise agreements do entitle you to Windows 7 licenses in virtual desktop environments, but they are expensive and require enterprise agreements. There is also an "uptick" that can allow Windows 7 pro to get a free VDI instance of itself, but this also requires an enterprise agreement. I don't believe either option will be available in quantities lower than 500, but I'm not positive on that.

As far as host license goes, Hyper-V 2012 is a free product. It requires no license at all to use. There is also a free version of the vSphere hypervisor (ESXi). Windows 8 includes a form of Hyper-V, and any 64-bit Windows or Linux operating system can run virtual machines through non-hypervisor virtualization software. VMware Player, VirtualBox, and VirtualPC are all free. Personally, I would use Hyper-V 2012.

My understanding of Mac OS X was you could run one instance per license. You can use any host operating system you want, but it most be on Apple hardware. However, I haven't actually researched this recently, and I'm not sure. I would definitely assume it's one instance per license, regardless of virtualization.

The mice would probably work fine with a converter, but the converter is probably not any cheaper than new mice, and ultimately would result in more total electronic waste. I wouldn't consider keeping them for even a heartbeat. Mice come free with most OEM computers and thin clients, and decent optical mice can be had for practically nothing.

netsysllc

You are not allowed to host any applications off the hyper-v server, it is against the license terms of the software. Using Windows 7 or any other desktop version of windows is not allowed either. Plus there is a limit on the number of network connections on the desktop software. Your best bet is going to be Foundation server or web server.

ptilsen

Yeah, in re-reading this, I see OP is simply trying to get a free Windows server license without actually pirating it or using a trial forever. To be honest, trying to use free Hyper-V as a web server for this purpose is so convoluted that I hadn't really considered that was what was being attempted.

If they want Windows, they need to buy it. If Linux will do, install Linux. Since it is just a web server, Web edition would be fine. It is okay to use desktop Windows as a web server, really -- that's why it comes with IIS. However, it is pretty limited and will probably not meet the need.

A cheaper option is going to be to host it externally. There is rarely a good reason to host a web site on a server. Either you have a farm with all sorts of redundancy at every level in a datacenter, or you're hosting it at a provider -- Godaddy, Rackspace, Azure, Amazon, etc.

What I said still applies for the second situation. Consider licenses carefully based on what's needed.

jibbajabba

netsysllc is pretty spot on - even IF it would work - you would breach the license agreement for Hyper-V.

At least that is my assumption - I don't quite get the License Terms.

Windows 7 has a connection limit of 20 - which I believe is limited by the network stack and not IIS specific (so it wouldn't matter if you use IIS or Apache - you'd still hit that limit).

MacGuffin

Good stuff here. Thanks to all for the replies. I'll break this up into topics since I did ask a series of questions that follow a couple of only mildly related topics.

Nomenclature
I did use "emulation" when I meant "virtualization". My bad. There is no emulation involved, just a poor choice of words on my part.

Also, when I used the words "Server Core" I was referring to the nature of Hyper-V Server being essentially a Windows 2008 instance with the "Server Core" install option. Both have limited GUI features and function identically. The WAMP package I tried to install seems to require a full GUI install for the control interface. I'll try a different package when I get the time, something less GUI-fied.

WAMP project
Perhaps I was not clear on the purpose of using Hyper-V to host the web server. ptilsen has it right, the goal is to host a web server on a Windows OS without having to buy a license. Thanks to jibbajabba for posting a link to the license agreement when I neglected to do so.

Everyone seems convinced that doing as I wish would violate the license agreement. I've read the agreement several times now and I don't see anything that prohibits what I want to do. So, I'll rephrase the question, what part of the license agreement would be violated? If using Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 as a web server is prohibited by the license agreement then someone should be able to point to the clause that states such. I realize that the exact words "thou shalt not run WAMP" won't appear but there should be something there to back up that claim.

The server is going to be a test and demonstration server. The argument is that the use of this OS as an evaluation platform should be permissible, just as it is with their other server products. If this works then there might be another sale for a license of Windows Server. If it doesn't then we try something else. If Microsoft does not like what I'm doing then there is a possibility of Microsoft losing many more future sales.

The goal is to test Windows binaries against an OS with the same structure as the intended target with minimal cost. The free Hyper-V Server OS seemed like an obvious solution for me.

I realize that this question has nothing to do with virtualization but I posted this question in this forum since I believed this is where I was most likely to find people familiar with the product. A discussion with a Microsoft "expert" was disappointing, unfruitful, and frustrating. This person, someone who's job description requires familiarity with Microsoft products, refused to believe that Microsoft offered any operating system for free. I didn't want to argue the point since I had better things to do with my time so I dropped it and moved on to my other questions for him. I had to wonder if this guy worked for Microsoft or for my customer. He seemed more eager to transfer my customer's money into Microsoft's pockets than he did to finding the lowest cost solution for the customer. I was under the impression we both worked for the same entity, perhaps I was mistaken.

Virtual network
To clarify some things on this I'll say that the goal is to create a virtual network with a variety of operating systems talking to each other. It seems that running multiple instances of Windows Server is permissible so long as it's done for a limited time for the purposes of training and testing. That is the goal here so I should be good. Given that I might want to keep this virtual network running beyond the time bomb period in the OS I'd like to find a way to avoid it if possible without incurring more cost.

When it came to Windows 7 I saw Microsoft advertise the included VirtualPC capability. I thought this would be worthless if it did not also include some means to run a Microsoft OS as part of that feature. I thought the VirtualPC feature, and the ability to run multiple instances of Windows, is why Windows 7 Ultimate cost so much more than the non-VirtualPC capable Windows 7 Home. Is this feature limited only to running Windows XP? If so then that should work for what I'm doing.

I expected that I would not find someone intimate with Apple's licensing policies on this forum but I asked just hoping someone might know. I'll look over the license agreement in detail once I get both the hardware and software in hand.

Serial mice
Again, not a virtualization question but posted here because I thought I'd find people familiar with the product. The desire is to make use of the serial port on the back of the computers I'll be using to host Hyper-V Server and Windows Server, and the serial mice I have in a box on my shelf. I should not need any converter as the device is designed to utilize the port on the computer. The issue is a matter of drivers. I had several USB mice die in the last couple years so I need more. I already have these serial mice that I'd like to use. I'd like to use them partly because they've lasted so long. I know I can (and I did) get a new USB mouse for $10 but these old ones are much more durable than what I've been able to find recently.

If I cannot find drivers for my old reliable serial mice then I'll have to continue my search for a reliable USB mouse.

ptilsen

For the free Hyper-V product, there may not be a stipulation that you not run anything in particular with it, but not much is going to work other than the hypervisor portion. It is not intended to be used for anything other than virtualization, and it is actually designed to not work for almost anything other than virtualization and of course basic OS features. It is unlikely you will be able to get anything significant working on it.

For using Hyper-V in conjunction with an actual server license, the license does stipulate that you only use the host system for the virtual machines.

Not to much more to do about it. You can buy Windows or use a trial, but it is extremely unlikely you will get Hyper-V to do anything but be Hyper-V. It is not just server core, and will not work with many of the roles server core will.

jibbajabba

Right, I think we have to clear up the two differences of Hyper-V server.

Windows Hyper-V edition
This is the free version, is a type 1 hypervisor.
You won't be able to run IIS as the role does not exist in this edition.
A lot of binaries are missing too - making it impossible to install certain products (on purpose probably).

Hyper-V role on server, even when running core edition.
Still requires a paid license and has all the roles available - including .net (in 2008R2 anyway).

So you are clearly referring to #1 and in that case you might be out of luck - is a bit like trying installing Apache on ESX - just because it has 'some sort' of OS - it is unlikely to work.

MentholMoose

MacGuffin wrote: »

So, I'll rephrase the question, what part of the license agreement would be violated?

I believe what you are trying to do violates this part of the EULA, under USE RIGHTS:

The instance of the server software running in the physical operating system environment may be used only to:

• provide hardware virtualization services, and/or
• run software to manage and service operating system environments on the licensed server.

MacGuffin

Thanks again for the replies. Again I'll break my responses out by topic.

Serial mice
This problem pretty much solved itself. I didn't find drivers for Windows 7 or Server 2008 but I did find some for XP. Not my intended target but I thought I could shuffle a couple mice around so the new computers had the USB mice and the serial ones ended up on the XP computers. The mice broke down into two groups, serial only and PS/2 & serial capable. The serial only mice either no longer worked, probably from years of sitting on a shelf, or were so old that I'm convinced that no drivers exist. The serial only mice are now on my pile to send off to recycling. The PS/2 & serial capable mice work fine on the computers that have PS/2 ports.

It was a fun little project. A bit of technological archeology for a few evenings to wind down after work. There's probably a lesson in here for me but I'm not sure what to take away from the experience.

WAMP project
Thanks to MentholMoose for finding what seemed to escape my eyes while I read the license agreement. I guess I mentally skipped over that part since the title of the section didn't seem relevant.

This part still seems to leave something for interpretation.

run software to manage and service operating system environments on the licensed server.

There are two servers I intended to set up, one for separate customers. One would not have hosted any virtual machines, it was to be solely a WAMP server as a proof of concept. The hardware was not even capable of hosting any virtual machines since the processor in it lacks hardware assisted virtualization required. This would be an obvious violation of the license agreement.

The second machine would host virtual machines for the development and testing of the web pages. The argument would be that this is in compliance since the WAMP stack exists to "service operating system environments on the licensed server" as allowed in the agreement.

I was able to get a WAMP stack running on the free Hyper-V Server 2008 R2 OS. After thinking about it some more and doing some more research I recalled that the prior attempt to install the WAMP stack failed because the WAMP package I tried before, called "WAMPserver", wanted to install a utility in the system tray. Hyper-V Server does not have a system tray. This time I tried the WAMP stack from BitNami and I was able to get it working. I did not test it extensively but all the parts seem to be functional.

I got this idea from when I first came across this Hyper-V Server and did some web surfing to figure out what it was and what it did. I came across a web site where the author claimed that there was nothing in the license agreement that prevented the use of the free Hyper-V Server product as a desktop OS. After making this claim the author proceeded to describe the steps he took to turn the feature limited hypervisor into a full blown desktop OS by installing things like a file manager, sound card drivers, a web browser, games, and more. I'm not sure what lead him to make this claim, perhaps the license agreement has changed since then. A change that, no doubt, is meant to prevent this tactic. Can't have the free server product compete with the not-so-free desktop product.

Whether or not I actually use the free Hyper-V Server as a host for a WAMP stack depends on the customer and its suitability for another project. Which gives a bit of a segue to my next topic...

Virtual network
I was thinking that the computer used for my WAMP demonstration project could be the same one that I use for my virtual network project. This computer has to be able to move with me, which means a laptop computer. This rules out VMWare ESXi server since it lacks the ability to provide a GUI to the virtual machines it hosts. I could use Hyper-V Server, probably as a dual boot unless I can load it up with stuff like that guy on that website I stumbled across before. Without sound or wireless networking it's going to be a bit frustrating to use in many cases. But I'm veering off the topic of my original questions.

The issue was the licensing of the OS on the hosted virtual guest machines. The hardware will be an Apple so if I wish to host MacOSX guests then one half of the licensing is not an issue. The other half is obtaining the proper license for the guest machines. Since no one here is familiar with virtual Macintoshes I'll just do some more research on my own.

I think I have the Windows licensing figured out. The VirtualPC that is included with Windows 7 Ultimate includes a license for a single copy of XP Pro. Anything beyond that and I have to buy it separately.

jibbajabba

Why not running a small Linux VM on top of Hyper-V for your LAMP stack ?

MacGuffin wrote: »

The VirtualPC that is included with Windows 7 Ultimate includes a license for a single copy of XP Pro. Anything beyond that and I have to buy it separately.

It is a stripped down version of Virtual PC and they call it XP Mode

MacGuffin

jibbajabba wrote: »

Why not running a small Linux VM on top of Hyper-V for your LAMP stack ?

The two customers in question desire a Windows solution. I'm not getting paid enough to buy a Windows license, actually I'm not getting paid at all. I'm basically creating a demonstration that, if they like it, could lead to paying work. With one customer I have donated hardware where the Windows license was lost. The other has surplus hardware and, IIRC, they don't have any Windows licenses for it. They pay by the CPU for licenses or something.

Not only would running a Linux VM be "cheating" it's not a useful demo. If this works the solution would be moved to another server, one that is not likely to have Hyper-V but will likely be running Windows Server of some form.

I could do the demonstration with LAMP but that has a couple issues. It's going to be more difficult to assure them that this will work on Windows if I'm not actually showing the demonstration on Windows. This is also going to be practice for me, I'll need to know how to make this work again.

The time bomb of the Windows Server evaluation period is likely to be a problem since these projects could run for months. There's things like fiscal years, pay periods, tax filing deadlines, and so on that need to be dealt with between the start of the project and when the funds could flow. I'll be working on these projects off and on in between other work and training. I'll want to be able to walk away in the middle and then come back, potentially weeks later, to pick up where I left off. If the evaluation period expires during that time then I'll have to start all over again.

I have other hardware available to me besides the two computers presented to me for these projects, that's where mention of laptops and such come in. I'd prefer to use the hardware offered since the other computers available, stuff I own and sit in my basement, are not as capable and/or are needed for other projects.

crrussell3

You do realize you can rearm the Windows activation trial period for a total of 240 days. This should help out if you are concerned with the trial period ending before the project is complete.

Zartanasaurus

MacGuffin wrote: »

The time bomb of the Windows Server evaluation period is likely to be a problem since these projects could run for months. There's things like fiscal years, pay periods, tax filing deadlines, and so on that need to be dealt with between the start of the project and when the funds could flow. I'll be working on these projects off and on in between other work and training. I'll want to be able to walk away in the middle and then come back, potentially weeks later, to pick up where I left off. If the evaluation period expires during that time then I'll have to start all over again.

Then that's a risk you're going to have to account for. Plus the trial activation lasts for a long time. Weeks later isn't a big deal. Years later, of course, is.

MacGuffin

crrussell3 wrote: »

You do realize you can rearm the Windows activation trial period for a total of 240 days. This should help out if you are concerned with the trial period ending before the project is complete.

I did not realize that. It should be no surprise to those reading this thread that I'm not terribly familiar with Windows. One thing I know is that I had a Windows install where the activation grace period timed out while the computer was off and when I powered it back up again I was given two options, enter the activation code or shutdown the computer. I had files on that computer I needed to access and I didn't have the time to deal with that activation crap.

I did a bit more web searching tonight and I see that Microsoft has instructions on how to reset the activation grace period. They even offer a script to automate the process. This made me wonder why they didn't just offer the software with the longer activation period. It wasn't long after that I saw that Microsoft does offer their Server 2008 R2 OS with a 180 day grace period but to get it I'd have to create some sort of an account with them. If I sign up for a Microsoft account are they going to send me a bunch of crap through e-mail or call me on the phone?

<rant>
Microsoft really pisses me off with some of this crap. Having that memory brought back of getting that ultimatum of entering their activation code or I'm not getting my own data back is really setting me off again. No one else seems so arrogant as to treat their customers like that. Why do we let Microsoft get away with it?

If their operating system didn't cost more than the computer running it I'd just go and buy it and be done. I'm not about to sink $300 of my hard earned money for a second rate OS that might not even do what I want. I suppose I could get the hacked up and feature limited version for $100 but then I'd be quite certain it won't do want I want. I've been running Windows XP for a very long time and it's been working well enough that I've essentially forgotten how much I had to pay for it. Now that the operating system is nearing the end of its support period I have to think real hard on how badly I need to keep current on the Microsoft operating systems. There's better stuff out there for a better price.

I'm doing the Microsoft training and doing these projects because they pay the bills. If I felt I had the choice to do so I'd walk away from them. As someone that has developed software and other intellectual property I am very reluctant to just do as I wish with their products in spite of their license restrictions. I'd be so easy to ignore the restrictions since there is nothing stopping me but my own honesty. As someone that relies on intellectual property law for my own paycheck I'll honor their restrictions since doing otherwise would be hypocritical and potentially put my own paycheck at risk.
</rant>

There. I feel better now.

I think I need to have a conversation with my customers. I'll need to explain to them the dilemma they put me in. If they don't cough up some money to pay for the Microsoft licenses then they just won't get the product they want. I believe one customer is going to be much more understanding than the other. I'll have to tread carefully.

Oh, there is one more thing I feel I should mention. Because of how my customers obtain their funds the ability for them to pay for my work depends on the outcome of the general election. This is part of the reason why I'm not mentioning their names.

Everyone needs to go vote. And choose wisely.

cyberguypr

I saw the rant coming a mile away. The problem here is two-fold. First, your customers expect a Windows solution for free. The one thing I've learned in my 14 years doing this is that the words Windows and FREE never go together in the same sentence or even the same paragraph. They are mutually exclusive. If a client wants Windows they have to pay. Period. I've always wanted a fancy sports car. But I don't expect it for free or even for a reduced price. I know that it has a price and it is what it is. If I can't pay it, I then look for an alternative. It is your duty to make sure your customers understand that. As a consultant you have to bring your customer back to reality. It doesn't surprise me when a customer comes asking for clusters, HA, DR, and other fancy stuff and give me a ridiculous budget. The options are clear: increase the budget, look for an alternate solutions, or scrap the project. Their call.

Second, your issues with Microsoft.

Having that memory brought back of getting that ultimatum of entering their activation code or I'm not getting my own data back is really setting me off again. No one else seems so arrogant as to treat their customers like that. Why do we let Microsoft get away with it?

If you know the rules of the game and decide to play you can't complain. M$ is not hiding anything. Plus, even when the trial expires there are ways to pull the data. It's not like the drive will be destroyed or encrypted (unless you encrypt it) and your data will be inaccessible. This is like when you rent a storage locker. If you don't play by the rules and pay the bill, then you'll stuff will end up on Storage Wars. Again, rules were clear from the beginning.

I saw that Microsoft does offer their Server 2008 R2 OS with a 180 day grace period but to get it I'd have to create some sort of an account with them. If I sign up for a Microsoft account are they going to send me a bunch of crap through e-mail or call me on the phone?

Hmm... are you kidding me? VMware, Oracle, <insert any major vendor here> also require registration in order to download stuff. If you don't have a spam/catchall address you must have one busy Inbox.

If their operating system didn't cost more than the computer running it I'd just go and buy it and be done. I'm not about to sink $300 of my hard earned money for a second rate OS that might not even do what I want.

Are you installing this on a $299 computer? And what makes the OS second rate? The fact that you don't like it or that it doesn't fulfill your needs? There's some logic! Also, if this is a demo, why are you spending money?

I'm doing the Microsoft training and doing these projects because they pay the bills. If I felt I had the choice to do so I'd walk away from them.

Life is short. Do what you love, not what pay the bills.

As someone that relies on intellectual property law for my own paycheck I'll honor their restrictions since doing otherwise would be hypocritical and potentially put my own paycheck at risk.

Kudos on the integrity. Rare trait these days.

Zartanasaurus

You don't seem cut out for supporting Microsoft products. Too much baggage and bias. There's nothing wrong with having an ideal "go to" solution when possible, but this thread seems like it was started more to be a rant about how much you hate Microsoft rather than really trying to figure out what type of solution you can deliver.

MacGuffin

cyberguypr wrote: »

I saw the rant coming a mile away. The problem here is two-fold. First, your customers expect a Windows solution for free. The one thing I've learned in my 14 years doing this is that the words Windows and FREE never go together in the same sentence or even the same paragraph. They are mutually exclusive. If a client wants Windows they have to pay. Period. I've always wanted a fancy sports car. But I don't expect it for free or even for a reduced price. I know that it has a price and it is what it is. If I can't pay it, I then look for an alternative. It is your duty to make sure your customers understand that. As a consultant you have to bring your customer back to reality. It doesn't surprise me when a customer comes asking for clusters, HA, DR, and other fancy stuff and give me a ridiculous budget. The options are clear: increase the budget, look for an alternate solutions, or scrap the project. Their call.

Second, your issues with Microsoft.


If you know the rules of the game and decide to play you can't complain. M$ is not hiding anything. Plus, even when the trial expires there are ways to pull the data. It's not like the drive will be destroyed or encrypted (unless you encrypt it) and your data will be inaccessible. This is like when you rent a storage locker. If you don't play by the rules and pay the bill, then you'll stuff will end up on Storage Wars. Again, rules were clear from the beginning.

I knew the rules. The complaint is part that Microsoft makes it so hard to play by the rules, part that somehow we allow Microsoft to dictate the rules much more than we'd allow from anyone else, and part the assumption Microsoft makes that all their users are software thieves until proven otherwise. Because of this they turned what was supposed to be a simple matter of booting up the computer and copying over some files, a ten minute process, into having to call up some touch tone driven computer to get a 25 digit code, reboot several times, recheck the code, then copy over the files I needed, an hour long process.

In hindsight it would have been quicker to boot up the computer with an Ubuntu LiveCD to get the files. If it takes a competitor's OS to fix the limitations of Microsoft's OS then I have to think real hard on how badly I need to run the Microsoft OS.

cyberguypr wrote: »

Hmm... are you kidding me? VMware, Oracle, <insert any major vendor here> also require registration in order to download stuff. If you don't have a spam/catchall address you must have one busy Inbox.

The question is more a concern over how well Microsoft adhere's to their promise they won't spam me than a complaint that I have to register. They used to offer their Hyper-V download without registration, which was one reason among many that I even considered it. The fact that other OS vendors require registration to download their product does not make it better, only worse. They all want a password and I have enough passwords to track. I should not need a spam address for things like this, they should be treating their customers with respect if they want their customers to keep coming back. Microsoft is not unique in this lack of respect, they are just a wee bit more notable on this matter.

cyberguypr wrote: »

Are you installing this on a $299 computer?

Pretty much. The computers are years old, not sure if I'd use the word "couple", "few", or "several" to describe the number of years. They meet the system requirements for the OS (except the hardware assisted virtualization for the Hyper-V role in one case) and a quick look at computer prices online show I can get computers with better specs for $300. The computers are essentially free since they were likely to end up in a recycling bin if they didn't end up with me. Replacement costs would be about $300 only because no manufacturer would offer a computer cheaper.

cyberguypr wrote: »

And what makes the OS second rate? The fact that you don't like it or that it doesn't fulfill your needs? There's some logic!

Lots of things make it second rate. A lack of a useful command line is one that comes to mind. A lack of utilities that are common on competing products is another. Sure, I can download all kinds of free stuff to fill in the gaps but I shouldn't have to. They have a consumer level OS but are charging power user prices.

cyberguypr wrote: »

Also, if this is a demo, why are you spending money?

I'm not spending money, or at least I'm looking for a way not to. If Microsoft is not willing to give some leeway in offering a no cost product to fill my needs I know of others that will. The question is, does Microsoft offer such a product? Microsoft's complicated product line and license agreements make it difficult to figure out what product will suit me and therefore how much it will cost.

cyberguypr wrote: »

Life is short. Do what you love, not what pay the bills.



Kudos on the integrity. Rare trait these days.

Thanks for the advice and the compliment.

MacGuffin

Zartanasaurus wrote: »

You don't seem cut out for supporting Microsoft products. Too much baggage and bias. There's nothing wrong with having an ideal "go to" solution when possible, but this thread seems like it was started more to be a rant about how much you hate Microsoft rather than really trying to figure out what type of solution you can deliver.

Looking back I realized my computing background is probably very different from what many others on this forum have experienced. Going way back we had an Apple II at home and school and from grade school to high school. There were IBM PS/2 series computers in the typing class but other than that I had little experience with Windows/Intel/DOS.

In college I studied engineering and Windows computers were rare. I'd often drop into the command line on the Windows computers I had to use because that was what I was comfortable with. I saw several computer labs in the college switch from Digital Unix, to Windows, to Linux in one year. I didn't have to use a certain Windows lab in the one semester it existed, my classes just happened to land that way. I heard they had all kinds of problems in that lab with Windows which led to the switch to Linux in an effort to save on the sunk cost in hardware. By the time I got to my software engineering courses I had bought my own Apple laptop and didn't have to use the Windows computers provided, I was able to work on my assignments in and out of the lab that way.

While working as an engineer I was always provided some unix variant to do my work. I had access to a Windows computer but that was often just used for e-mail, web research, and accessing the unix computers. It used to be that if Windows broke I'd just call someone else to fix the problem, it just wasn't in my job description to fix Windows.

I say all of that to point out that this "baggage and bias" runs wide and deep in the world I come from. My "second rate" comment flows from this. I recall e-mails from software vendors that they would no longer support their Windows products because Windows did not support the memory requirements needed. It was about this time that I got an e-mail from corporate IT that they would no longer support the engineering software on Windows.

I didn't intend to go off on a rant with the start of this thread. I'm just ignorant of the "Microsoft way" since they have a very unique way of doing things. My job description still does not include the support of Windows but because of how things happened I now have to deal with this. I'm working as a web developer of sorts now. I'm not supposed to be installing Windows on anything but due to a lack of others willing and able to do this it landed on my lap.

You're right, I'm not cut out for supporting Windows. This should be a temporary situation. Once I get past this hurdle I should be able to return to my blissful life of Microsoft ignorance.