I'm not sure I understand what you're saying sorry Chris. Why would anyone put Vista or XP on a VMWare server?
----------------------------------------- Bruce Trevarthen, CEO ZeroOne (NZ) Limited --- DDI: +64 4 4714444 Mobile: +64 21 567967 ------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: cfaussie@googlegroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Velevitch Sent: Friday, 29 June 2007 3:30 p.m. To: cfaussie@googlegroups.com Subject: [cfaussie] Re: Virtual Servers 101 On 6/29/07, Bruce Trevarthen (B2 Limited) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SOFTWARE: > Again you're correct, each VM is just as if it were a physical server in the > eye's of software licenses, even Microsoft still expect a Processor license > per Virtual Server even though it's only one physical CPU underneath it all. I think that's incorrect. Wasn't there some news article stating the low end versions of Vista have a virtualisation restriction in their license that was going to be lifted whereas XP Home can be? If you had to buy a license for very virtual machine, OS manufacturers would have lost a lot of business. Chris -- Chris Velevitch Manager - Sydney Flash Platform Developers Group m: 0415 469 095 www.flashdev.org.au --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "cfaussie" group. To post to this group, send email to cfaussie@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cfaussie?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
