Hi,
I'm having trouble installing Windows on a fully virtualized VM on CentOS 5. The installation hangs on the blue screen saying "Setup is starting Windows". The hardware is a dual processor dual core AMD Opteron 2218 with 8GB RAM and SATA disks, CentoOS 5 i386 will all patches applied. On the same machine I have successfully installed two VM's running CentOS 5, one paravirtualized and one with full virtualization. I have tried to install Windows 2003 server and Windows XP with the same result. The installation media are iso images of the Windows MSDN DVDs. When the installation hangs at the "Setup is starting Windows" screen the virt-manager shows 25% cpu utilization for the guest ( I think this represents 100% CPU usage for the guest as it has 1 vcpu assigned out the maximum 4 vcpus). I am running the virt-manager and the virtual machine console over ssh as dom0 has no X server installed. Has anyone seen this problem? Any suggestions?
Regards,
Radu
On 4/26/07, Radu Radutiu rradutiu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I'm having trouble installing Windows on a fully virtualized VM on CentOS 5. The installation hangs on the blue screen saying "Setup is starting Windows".
Hangs for how long? I've had XP installs spend a *lot* of time on that screen when installing on virtual hardware (I've not done it with Xen, but nevertheless). It always continues eventually.
Radu Radutiu wrote:
Hi,
I'm having trouble installing Windows on a fully virtualized VM on CentOS 5. The installation hangs on the blue screen saying "Setup is starting Windows". The hardware is a dual processor dual core AMD Opteron 2218 with 8GB RAM and SATA disks, CentoOS 5 i386 will all patches applied. On the same machine I have successfully installed two VM's running CentOS 5, one paravirtualized and one with full virtualization. I have tried to install Windows 2003 server and Windows XP with the same result. The installation media are iso images of the Windows MSDN DVDs. When the installation hangs at the "Setup is starting Windows" screen the virt-manager shows 25% cpu utilization for the guest ( I think this represents 100% CPU usage for the guest as it has 1 vcpu assigned out the maximum 4 vcpus). I am running the virt-manager and the virtual machine console over ssh as dom0 has no X server installed. Has anyone seen this problem? Any suggestions?
AFAIK, Xen requires the guest OS to support Xen. I don't think we will see Windows supporting Xen soon.
And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly.
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
The hardware is a dual processor dual core AMD Opteron 2218 with 8GB RAM and SATA disks, CentoOS 5 i386 will all patches applied. On the
AFAIK, Xen requires the guest OS to support Xen. I don't think we will see Windows supporting Xen soon.
Considering he has a 2218, and therefore smx support - Windows(1) should install and work fine under a Fully Virtual setup under Xen.
- KB [1] could it be that only some versions of Windows will work this way ? I dont know, dont use windows!
Karanbir Singh wrote:
Considering he has a 2218, and therefore smx support - Windows(1) should
s/smx/svm/
On 4/26/07, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
The hardware is a dual processor dual core AMD Opteron 2218 with 8GB RAM and SATA disks, CentoOS 5 i386 will all patches applied. On the
AFAIK, Xen requires the guest OS to support Xen. I don't think we will see Windows supporting Xen soon.
Considering he has a 2218, and therefore smx support - Windows(1) should install and work fine under a Fully Virtual setup under Xen.
- KB
[1] could it be that only some versions of Windows will work this way ? I dont know, dont use windows! -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list
I have found the solution on the linux.redhat.fedora.xen mailing list. On the install screen that says to press F6 you should press F5 and select "Standard PC" and continue. This has worked fine for Windows XP.
Thanks,
Radu
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
AFAIK, Xen requires the guest OS to support Xen. I don't think we will see Windows supporting Xen soon.
And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly.
I am talking about support license above.
On 4/26/07, Sean Brown sbrown.home@gmail.com wrote:
And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly. _______________________________________________
No it doesn't.
Where is the source of this information???
Akemi
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On 4/26/07, Sean Brown sbrown.home@gmail.com wrote:
And AFAIK MS license agreement requires a separate licensing for Windows to be used under any competitive virtual machine, but not for their own VM (Virtual PC). Monopoly, Monopoly, Monopoly. _______________________________________________
No it doesn't.
Where is the source of this information???
OK, this is what I remembered in general as a home user. I checked it on the web, and I found the following. This is from a pro-Windows site, but the conclusion is still the same.
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp
"Virtualization licensing
One final area that's come under a lot of scrutiny--and, as it turns out, misguided interpretations--regards virtualization. With Windows Vista, Microsoft is finally addressing virtualization in the EULA. And it goes something like this:
Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.)
Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint. (There is nothing technical preventing you from doing so, of course.) And on a related note, each retail copy of Vista you purchase is only licensable for one install. If you install a copy of Windows Vista in a virtual machine and then activate it, you cannot install the same copy of Vista on a physical machine and reactivate it (unless you take advantage of the transfer rights mentioned above, of course). One license equals one installation.
So why "restrict" users like that? Well, as it turns out, there's no massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM. And those that want to, can, if they don't mind violating the Vista EULA and not receiving support.
Windows Vista Enterprise is a special case. With that version of Vista, which will be made available only to volume license customers, users will be able to install a single licensed copy of Vista on one physical PC and up to four VMs, simultaneously. Those four VMs, however, must all be installed on the same Vista Enterprise-based PC, and they must be used by the same user. "If customers need multiple virtual machines they should use Vista Enterprise," Microsoft's Scott Woodgate told me. "The intention is to be generous and enable whatever scenarios are customers may need." Sounds like a customer benefit to me."
Conclusion: "You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint".
Ioannis Vranos wrote:
"Virtualization licensing
One final area that's come under a lot of scrutiny--and, as it turns out, misguided interpretations--regards virtualization. With Windows Vista, Microsoft is finally addressing virtualization in the EULA. And it goes something like this:
Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.)
Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint. (There is nothing technical preventing you from doing so, of course.) And on a related note, each retail copy of Vista you purchase is only licensable for one install. If you install a copy of Windows Vista in a virtual machine and then activate it, you cannot install the same copy of Vista on a physical machine and reactivate it (unless you take advantage of the transfer rights mentioned above, of course). One license equals one installation.
So why "restrict" users like that? Well, as it turns out, there's no massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM. And those that want to, can, if they don't mind violating the Vista EULA and not receiving support.
Windows Vista Enterprise is a special case. With that version of Vista, which will be made available only to volume license customers, users will be able to install a single licensed copy of Vista on one physical PC and up to four VMs, simultaneously. Those four VMs, however, must all be installed on the same Vista Enterprise-based PC, and they must be used by the same user. "If customers need multiple virtual machines they should use Vista Enterprise," Microsoft's Scott Woodgate told me. "The intention is to be generous and enable whatever scenarios are customers may need." Sounds like a customer benefit to me."
Conclusion: "You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint".
Some more links on this:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_vista_eula_analysis/page2....
http://www.google.gr/search?q=microsoft+vista+vmware+license&start=0&...
I haven't researched the entire mess thoroughly but you get the picture, you will need a lawyer if you use vmware & windows. :-)
-
Akemi Yagi -
Bart Schaefer -
Ioannis Vranos -
Karanbir Singh -
Radu Radutiu -
Sean Brown