I am having my MacBook Pro repaired and while it is being repaired, I've borrowed my brother's MBP. I thought if they replace the MBP logic board I may have some Window's licensing issues when I got my machine back. I backed up my MBP to an external drive before sending it in for repair. So, I booted my brother's MBP from my "system". Just out of curiiousity, I launched parallels and resumed the VM. It worked fine. So, is it safe to assume that Windows is tied to the software install and not the machine that it's installed on?
Windows install tied to parallels install or hardware
- Thread starter macmansc
- Start date
I think you may have answered your own question already. To me, the real issue is one of Windows licensing and legality. I believe Windows licenses their product for installation on one pc only. If you install the same software on a different pc, you run into a licensing conundrum.
I'm no expert and certainly I am not skilled in law, but I believe that what I've outlined above is accurate. If not, someone else can chime in and correct me.
I'm no expert and certainly I am not skilled in law, but I believe that what I've outlined above is accurate. If not, someone else can chime in and correct me.
Last edited:
BenInBlack
Pro
legalities aside,
Parallels is a virtual environment. It creates a virtual HAL (Hardware Access Layer) between Windows and actually Mac Hardware. So to Windows the HAL never changed.
back to the legal issue. it could be argued that he didn't install it on another machine ;-) he is running from a backup. plus he is not running 2 instances because the other one is not in is posession. I think the main intent was to keep someone from installing it on 2 machines and using those 2 at the same time. He clearly can't do this.
I dont think there is a jury in this land that would convict him
Parallels is a virtual environment. It creates a virtual HAL (Hardware Access Layer) between Windows and actually Mac Hardware. So to Windows the HAL never changed.
back to the legal issue. it could be argued that he didn't install it on another machine ;-) he is running from a backup. plus he is not running 2 instances because the other one is not in is posession. I think the main intent was to keep someone from installing it on 2 machines and using those 2 at the same time. He clearly can't do this.
I dont think there is a jury in this land that would convict him