Linux compatible laptop? - Hardware

This is a discussion on Linux compatible laptop? - Hardware ; In article , Trevor Hemsley wrote: > On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn > wrote: > > > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home > > and Professional editions of Windows XP does not ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Linux compatible laptop?

  1. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    In article ,
    Trevor Hemsley wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
    > wrote:
    >
    > > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home
    > > and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those
    > > versions of Windows inside a virtual machine

    >
    > I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been rescinded.
    >
    > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01...isation_vista/


    If you have Vista running in a VM and change the underlying hardware
    (either all at once or "George Washington's axe"-style), is that OK by
    them?

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
    A. A Top Poster \ http://www.fscked.co.uk/
    B. Who's there? \ writing/
    A. Knock-knock -- from bobward@xxx.com \ top-posting-cuss.html

  2. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:07:42 +0000, Hactar wrote:

    > In article , Trevor
    > Hemsley wrote:
    >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home and Professional
    >> > editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those versions of
    >> > Windows inside a virtual machine

    >>
    >> I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been
    >> rescinded.
    >>
    >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01...isation_vista/

    >
    > If you have Vista running in a VM and change the underlying hardware
    > (either all at once or "George Washington's axe"-style), is that OK by
    > them?


    The virtual harware is what the client OS sees not the physical hardware
    so it shouldn't detect that it's been moved. I've been using the same XP
    and 2K VMs for years on different hardware, they have never complained.
    If you are using the VMs at a large company that is subject to audit then
    chances are you would need a separate license for each physical box.



  3. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    On May 10, 12:25*pm, Aragorn wrote:
    > Hactar wrote:
    > > In article ,
    > > Aragorn * wrote:

    >
    > >> The GNU/Linux virtual machine would be the "host" - although the
    > >> host/guest terminology is actually incorrect verbage in a Xen set-up -
    > >> and the Windows virtual machine would be the "guest".

    >
    > >> You would be using your Windows desktop from within an X11 window in
    > >> GNU/Linux,

    >
    > > Or you whack a key combo, and it's full-screen.

    >
    > Yes, of course, but what I meant (and failed) to say was that you cannot
    > have Windows control the hardware directly as if it were running on bare
    > metal, so the GNU/Linux system and the VMWare Player would always be there
    > underneath Windows.
    >
    > > But don't expect Windows to see the Whizzbang-3000 video card you just
    > > bought -- IME, it always sees the one card VMware presents to it, a
    > > (restoring VMware to find out) "VMware SVGA II", which can be the same
    > > resolution as one of (? the larger of?) your X monitors.

    >
    > Exactly. *Most of the hardware is being emulated, and only a small subset of
    > the Windows instructions actually makes it to the processor directly, and
    > then still, via a set of traps.
    >
    > >> There is however a caveat... *According to Microsoft, the EULA for the
    > >> Home and Professional editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run
    > >> those versions of Windows inside a virtual machine - whether it's via
    > >> Xen, VirtualBox, VMWare, Bochs or whatever other virtualization
    > >> technology.

    >
    > > Yeah, it's a different CPU, chipset, cards, monitor, the works.



    Based on the thread, which is the best Linux laptop that I should
    consider so that I can comfortably run both Linux and Windows XP.

    http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c.../Info/08/Linux

    Thanks!

    Ramu

    > >> As such, you would be violating the law, so the responsibility is yours..
    > >> Should you decide to go ahead and do it anyway and they throw you in
    > >> jail, we won't come visit you.

    >
    > > Can you sell a license (e.g. to yourself, for a dollar)?

    >
    > I believe that the Microsoft EULA does not allow resale of the license.
    > Basically, if the shrinkwrap plastic is removed from the box,
    > you're /foobarred./
    >
    > --
    > *Aragorn*
    > (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)



  4. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    In article ,
    General Schvantzkopf wrote:
    > On Sat, 10 May 2008 23:07:42 +0000, Hactar wrote:
    >
    > > In article , Trevor
    > > Hemsley wrote:
    > >> On Sat, 10 May 2008 11:54:51 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware, Aragorn
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> > According to Microsoft, the EULA for the Home and Professional
    > >> > editions of Windows XP does not allow you to run those versions of
    > >> > Windows inside a virtual machine
    > >>
    > >> I think your information on this is out of date and this has now been
    > >> rescinded.
    > >>
    > >> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01...isation_vista/

    > >
    > > If you have Vista running in a VM and change the underlying hardware
    > > (either all at once or "George Washington's axe"-style), is that OK by
    > > them?

    >
    > The virtual harware is what the client OS sees not the physical hardware
    > so it shouldn't detect that it's been moved. I've been using the same XP
    > and 2K VMs for years on different hardware, they have never complained.
    > If you are using the VMs at a large company that is subject to audit then
    > chances are you would need a separate license for each physical box.


    I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
    to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.
    If true, is it also OK to move it the other direction? IOW, does the
    same license allow one real and one virtual non-simultaneous
    installation?

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP
    1101000 1110100 1110100 1110000 0111010 0101111 0101111 1110010 1101111
    1111001 1100001 1101100 1110100 1111001 0101110 1101101 1101001 1101110
    1100101 0101110 1101110 1110101 0111010 0111000 0110001 0101111

  5. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    Ramu wrote:

    > Based on the thread, which is the best Linux laptop that I should
    > consider so that I can comfortably run both Linux and Windows XP.
    >
    >

    http://shop.lenovo.com/SEUILibrary/c.../Info/08/Linux

    Well, it all depends on your preferences. The R61 is obviously more
    affordable than both T61s. The T61 with the 15.4" screen might be more
    interesting than the R61 and T61 with the 14.1" screen if you value a
    bigger screen and a longer battery life.

    It's also got a slightly faster processor, but that difference is rather
    marginal. 2.0 GHz for both 14.1" screen models, 2.2 GHz for the 15.4"
    screen model. All depends on your budget and on what you prefer. :-)

    Either way, all three models come with hardware that's fully supported in
    GNU/Linux, and Crimosoft would be very foolish not to support such standard
    hardware in Vista. You may however want to opt for 2 GB of RAM at the very
    least - 4 GB would even be better - if you really want to run Windows
    inside a virtual machine.

    Yet, since you're talking of office productivity applications, you should be
    able to get them to work natively on GNU/Linux with Crossover Office, which
    is an enhanced (and commercial) version of /wine,/ which in turn - as I've
    written elsewhere - is an ABI (Application Binary Interface) for Windows
    programs on UNIX systems.

    So you wouldn't need to run a fully fledged Windows and a virtual machine
    monitor or a hypervisor. Instead, you just install the applications in
    GNU/Linux via the Crossover Office layer and you start them in the same
    manner.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  6. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:07:40 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
    ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:

    > I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
    > to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.


    I don't see anything either way about that in that article. The only thing I
    thought of interest was the story that MS had gone back on the original EULA and
    now allow users to install both varieties of Vista Home in a virtualized
    environment.

    The problem you would have with moving it from real to virtual and vice versa is
    the inordinate amount of time and shenannigans it takes for any flavour of
    Windows to 'detect' the hardware it's running on and reconfigure itself to run
    on it. It's possible - at least with XP which I have run from the same partition
    on the bare metal and under VirtualBox - but it not only spends ages finding the
    hardware it's already running on but then decides it has to be reactivated when
    you move in both directions.

    --
    Trevor Hemsley, Brighton, UK
    Trevor dot Hemsley at ntlworld dot com

  7. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    In article ,
    Trevor Hemsley wrote:
    > On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:07:40 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
    > ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
    >
    > > I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
    > > to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.

    >
    > I don't see anything either way about that in that article. The only thing I
    > thought of interest was the story that MS had gone back on the original EULA and
    > now allow users to install both varieties of Vista Home in a virtualized
    > environment.


    Fair enough. Was that impossible to do legally before this change?

    > The problem you would have with moving it from real to virtual and vice versa is
    > the inordinate amount of time and shenannigans it takes for any flavour of
    > Windows to 'detect' the hardware it's running on and reconfigure itself to run
    > on it. It's possible - at least with XP which I have run from the same partition
    > on the bare metal and under VirtualBox - but it not only spends ages finding the
    > hardware it's already running on but then decides it has to be reactivated when
    > you move in both directions.


    Yup, changing hardware underneath a recent Windows is a recipe for
    disaster.

    --
    -eben QebWenE01R@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81

    Unix is user-friendly; it's just picky
    about who it makes friends with.

  8. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    Hactar wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Trevor Hemsley wrote:
    >> On Sun, 11 May 2008 01:07:40 UTC in comp.os.linux.hardware,
    >> ebenZEROONE@verizon.net (Hactar) wrote:
    >>
    >> > I thought the gist of the article referenced above is that it's now OK
    >> > to move Vista from real to virtual on one machine on the same license.

    >>
    >> I don't see anything either way about that in that article. The only
    >> thing I thought of interest was the story that MS had gone back on the
    >> original EULA and now allow users to install both varieties of Vista Home
    >> in a virtualized environment.

    >
    > Fair enough. Was that impossible to do legally before this change?


    Yep.

    >> The problem you would have with moving it from real to virtual and vice
    >> versa is the inordinate amount of time and shenannigans it takes for any
    >> flavour of Windows to 'detect' the hardware it's running on and
    >> reconfigure itself to run on it. It's possible - at least with XP which I
    >> have run from the same partition on the bare metal and under VirtualBox -
    >> but it not only spends ages finding the hardware it's already running on
    >> but then decides it has to be reactivated when you move in both
    >> directions.

    >
    > Yup, changing hardware underneath a recent Windows is a recipe for
    > disaster.


    _*Putting*_ hardware underneath Windows is a recipe for disaster.

    --
    *Aragorn*
    (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)

  9. Re: Linux compatible laptop?

    good

    The Usenet Improvement Project is an attempt to make Usenet participation a better experience for those who are clued as to what the Usenet medium is and how to use it.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2