Activation Hassles: Why I've Uninstalled Parallels
Last night, I made the decision to uninstall Parallels. I really love how the program works, especially in Coherence mode; but over the last week I’ve noticed I have to re-activate Microsoft Word 2007 every time I switch from using Parallels to using Boot Camp. While I’ve been able to re-activate Word without incident so far, I fear hitting a spot where I have no choice but to call Microsoft to beg and plead with them to gain the release of my software’s functionality. That’s something I just don’t want to do. (It makes me wish I had stayed with Office 2000.)
When I had tried Parallels a few months ago, it was the constant reactivation of both XP and Office that caused me to back off from using it. Using the latest build, it seemed like the problem had been fixed until a week or two ago when it came back. Last night, I did some tests to see if the problem was reproducible; and it was. Booting into Parallels after using Boot Camp or vice versa and then calling up Word 2007 brought up the “please activate this software with Microsoft” window each and every time Word launched. I really didn’t want to go through that every time I wanted to use Word 2007. I’d never know when or if Microsoft was going to turn me off!
I’m really a “keep it simple” kinda’ guy (as much as I can), so I decided to uninstall Parallels to keep my system configuration both stable and straightforward.
My experience suggests that if you’re a heavy Parallels user with only an occasional need to boot straight into OS X, then Parallels is a great tool for you. If you have a frequent need to boot into XP using Boot Camp and still want to run Parallels, then you’ll need to consider how much of your software uses activation methodologies to run. My Microsoft applications have demonstrated they check activation status on each launch, and a heavy Microsoft user will have the same activation hassles I did. I’m not sure about Adobe applications since the only ones I have on my Windows’ partition are trial versions that check into how much of my 30 day trial is left (though I did notice that running the Photoshop CS3 trial version under Parallels really threw off XP clocks; Photoshop was telling me my trial had expired when I still had 17 days to go!).
My experience raises a question, and it is whether activation technology is the enemy of virtualization. Microsoft’s recent statements and their allowing only the “higher” cost versions of Vista to run in a virtualized environment leads one to believe they are uncomfortable with users running their OS in those modes. If that’s true, then it’s not much of a stretch to foresee Microsoft using activation to control whether you can run their OS under virtualization. You can bet, too, that if they do it, so will many others.
The interesting thing about that is how it could pit the application companies against the software companies whose business it is to provide virtualization tools, Nova Development (the company that makes Parallels) among them. For the latter to survive, they might have to find a way to turn activation off or fool it, no doubt a direct violation of the overly broad DMCA.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
When I had tried Parallels a few months ago, it was the constant reactivation of both XP and Office that caused me to back off from using it. Using the latest build, it seemed like the problem had been fixed until a week or two ago when it came back. Last night, I did some tests to see if the problem was reproducible; and it was. Booting into Parallels after using Boot Camp or vice versa and then calling up Word 2007 brought up the “please activate this software with Microsoft” window each and every time Word launched. I really didn’t want to go through that every time I wanted to use Word 2007. I’d never know when or if Microsoft was going to turn me off!
I’m really a “keep it simple” kinda’ guy (as much as I can), so I decided to uninstall Parallels to keep my system configuration both stable and straightforward.
My experience suggests that if you’re a heavy Parallels user with only an occasional need to boot straight into OS X, then Parallels is a great tool for you. If you have a frequent need to boot into XP using Boot Camp and still want to run Parallels, then you’ll need to consider how much of your software uses activation methodologies to run. My Microsoft applications have demonstrated they check activation status on each launch, and a heavy Microsoft user will have the same activation hassles I did. I’m not sure about Adobe applications since the only ones I have on my Windows’ partition are trial versions that check into how much of my 30 day trial is left (though I did notice that running the Photoshop CS3 trial version under Parallels really threw off XP clocks; Photoshop was telling me my trial had expired when I still had 17 days to go!).
My experience raises a question, and it is whether activation technology is the enemy of virtualization. Microsoft’s recent statements and their allowing only the “higher” cost versions of Vista to run in a virtualized environment leads one to believe they are uncomfortable with users running their OS in those modes. If that’s true, then it’s not much of a stretch to foresee Microsoft using activation to control whether you can run their OS under virtualization. You can bet, too, that if they do it, so will many others.
The interesting thing about that is how it could pit the application companies against the software companies whose business it is to provide virtualization tools, Nova Development (the company that makes Parallels) among them. For the latter to survive, they might have to find a way to turn activation off or fool it, no doubt a direct violation of the overly broad DMCA.
Wouldn’t that be a hoot?
posted by Andy Foster at
8:47 AM
1 Comments:
I haven't experienced any activation issues while using a Parallels-only configuration, but in such a config the guest OS doesn't see any hardware changes. By running the same Windows install under BootCamp and also Parallels it's getting a different hardware config between the two and you experience the same problem with activation that you'd see if you replaced your hard drive and motherboard.
I think Parallels is providing the guest OS with "vanilla" hardware for the most part, which doesn't match what's actually on your system. It's still emulating hardware, but it's faster than previous Mac virtualization programs such as Virtual PC because it doesn't have to emulate the Intel architecture.
Personally, I don't think it's a flaw in Parallels that the company should seek to correct, but instead another example of why activation usually has a negative impact on the consumer. Using Windows XP with BootCamp and then using it with Parallels is comparable to installing your software on a new computer, except the time frame is significantly reduced. It's a matter of the software company deciding how you should use your software.
I don't think there's any way to solve the activation issue between BootCamp and Parallels while still maintaining the advantages of using a virtualized environment.
I wonder if the Parallels "hardware" actually contains identifiers unique to each machine? It would be interesting to see what happens to software that requires activation by moving the entire VM to another Mac with Parallels...
By
Michael, at 9:37 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home