I am just starting to think about replacing my PC with one based on TR or TR2 when it is released, but before I get too far, I have a couple of basic questions that I hope someone can help me with…
If I run Linux as my main OS with a suitable mid-range GPU, and then pass through a Quadro P2000 to a Windows VM (for work), and a 1080Ti to another Windows VM (for play), would I need to purchase two copies of Windows, even though I will only ever use one VM at a time?
I seem to recall @wendell mentioning in one of his videos that there was a way to keep a single Windows image patched and up to date, and run it on bare metal as well as through a VM. I don’t suppose there is a similar way to keep two copies of Windows up to date in the same way - just to avoid having to wait around for updates?
I’m going to speculate that in this case you will need to own two copies of Windows if you want to keep everything ‘above board’ since both VM’s are used for production/live work e.g. they are not simply VM’s for testing.
Microsoft does offer the ability to licence Windows 10 on VM’s (for VDI) but this is geared up for corporate customers who will be running ten’s if not hundreds of them.
Having said that there are ways you could technically keep the same base VM image and have differentials over the top, but you’d likely end up needing to periodically refresh the whole thing as the base image effectively becomes read-only and patches would get applied to the diffs. Else you are moving the C drive image between the two VM’s at which point I think you would just be better off with a single Windows VM - or physical box.
I agree with @BGL. If you want the easy and 100% legal way just buy Win 10 Pro twice.
If you don’t mind a little wait time you could use one VM and just change the GPU before every boot. However that might hurt you in the long time as the windows activation might not like it.
I think you can do it legally if one of VMs is on the insider release. Mind you it won’t be the most stable thing on the planet. But that may induce more headaches. You may just want to pick up two licenses.
If you have one computer on and another off you still need two licenses so the same applies here as others have mentioned. Win 10 is cheap enough there’s no saving when looking at virtual licensing I don’t think and windows doesn’t have anything like red hat where a single server license is also good for 1 physical or 2 virtual.
Buyer beware. Regardless people pay £60 for games. £100 for an infinitely more complex operating system is cheap (especially compared to the cost of other operating systems), people are just used to getting the cost built into the price of their PC or with Linux just take because they can and think £0 is a reasonable price.
But that is paying for RHEL support mostly, no? Besides, outside of businesses, if you are confident and knowledgeable enough, you could also run CentOS or some other GNU/Linux.
Sure but that’s not the point and you know it. Of operating systems that have a cost windows 10 is one of the cheapest.
People (in general) are so accustomed to getting things for free, breaking copyright to get what they want, etc. Generally forgetting the hidden cost of windows.
The fact is windows has always cost money, if you want to use windows you should have zero issues paying for it. It’s a reasonable price for a complete price of software, I’m not sure many people know just how cheap windows 10 actually is in comparison to almost any other complex price of software.
In return you get your packages on going updates, 10 years of a stable OS before upgrading, support which is generally anything from good documentation to Redhat developers creating patches for your bugs depending on what they are.
But the fact is it goes further than that. Centos exists because someone pays for RHEL. Don’t equate free software to mean free beer because the more people that do the less free software will exist.
I have better things I could be doing than arguing windows’ telemetry “features”. That was just an example for my general feelings about windows’ quality. Oh well, it is too late now.
Yeah, I just don’t remember it ever being 120–200€ expensive. I don’t have issues paying for it, I just don’t really see the point for consumers.
I currently don’t pay for windows because I am a student and get windows 10 Edu. Would I have an actual job, It probably wouldn’t hurt me to pay for windows.
Free software doesn’t only exist because people pay Redhat to make it. Other companies also make or contribute to free software (google, intel, …), and some mad volunteers even do it as a hobby. Sure there is usually some other reason for doing that, that can probably be traced back to the users giving some money to that corporation, but generally FLOSS won’t stop because people stop paying for RHEL.
Really the point I should have made earlier, to stop this runaway argument from derailing right into RHEL is that we should clearly distinguish between individuals and corporations. For corporations to pay 350€/a or 200€ or whatever is likely not all that much, it can just seem a bit jarring to a consumer, especially if they don’t have a lot of money. But chances are that they already had windows on whatever device they bought.
In conclusion: I have no idea where the fuck this argument went.
Edit: To probably explain what I meant earlier, and get back on track:
I just felt like a 200€ price point isn’t justified for windows. Then again, I don’t really pay for software all that often because I use either Free (as in freedom) software (arguably in science you should use free software), or can get some volume licensing through my university or other. Thus I have no idea what a price-point for software usually is nowadays, so maybe 200€ isn’t all that bad after all. I just wouldn’t fucking know.