blue Iris OS

skjom

Getting the hang of it
Jul 3, 2015
105
23
I was looking to install on Proxmox in a VM and know it's a windows OS. I was wondering what OS people use for their Blue Iris setup , windows server would probably have less bloat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bensocket
I was looking to install on Proxmox in a VM and know it's a windows OS. I was wondering what OS people use for their Blue Iris setup , windows server would probably have less bloat.
Windows 10 Pro (MS support ending Oct. 2025) or Windows 11 Pro.

ATM, I use Win 10 Pro. I have 2 clients with Win 10 Home and 1 with Win 10 Pro.
 
Last edited:
I have multiple systems running Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC. no bloat and rock solid.

You can get cheap keys here been using for years. If you buy a license from them, send them a message and ask for proper ISO link.

 
I have multiple systems running Windows 10 Enterprise LTSC. no bloat and rock solid.

You can get cheap keys here been using for years. If you buy a license from them, send them a message and ask for proper ISO link.

These are not legit legal key even if they work. MS is not selling keys for 13 bux. There is irony is stealing an OS to protect your own property from thieves.
 
These are not legit legal key even if they work. MS is not selling keys for 13 bux. There is irony is stealing an OS to protect your own property from thieves.
Yeah I often wondered about it but if you look it up, they are legally sold.

In the EU, software license resale is legal, even if explicitly forbidden by terms of any EULA or other contract imposed upon the parties. To quote the European Court of Justice's press release on its ruling in a case in Germany between Oracle and a German reseller,
An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his `used' licenses allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. [...] The principle of exhaustion of the distribution right applies not only where the copyright holder markets copies of his software on a material medium (CD-ROM or DVD) but also where he distributes them by means of downloads from his website.
Where the copyright holder makes available to his customer a copy – tangible or intangible – and at the same time concludes, in return form payment of a fee, a licence agreement granting the customer the right to use that copy for an unlimited period, that rightholder sells the copy to the customer and thus exhausts his exclusive distribution right. Such a transaction involves a transfer of the right of ownership of the copy. Therefore, even if the license agreement prohibits a further transfer, the rightholder can no longer oppose the resale of that copy.
There are many such companies in the EU who resell software legally, including used OEM Windows licenses that are far cheaper than retail copies.

so then if you follow this case:

Under Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, a copyrighted work, sold with permission from the rightsholder, may be resold in the United States regardless of where the copy was originally sold, without the consent of the rightsholder. This means that authorized copies of Windows, originally sold outside the United States, may be resold in the US by anyone in lawful possession of them.

I may be understanding this incorrectly but I gather from this that it is legit.

The seller is claiming the keys are for recycled computers. whether that is the source like they told me IDK

Like i said, i might be understanding this incorrectly?
 
Yeah I often wondered about it but if you look it up, they are legally sold.

In the EU, software license resale is legal, even if explicitly forbidden by terms of any EULA or other contract imposed upon the parties. To quote the European Court of Justice's press release on its ruling in a case in Germany between Oracle and a German reseller,

There are many such companies in the EU who resell software legally, including used OEM Windows licenses that are far cheaper than retail copies.

so then if you follow this case:

Under Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, a copyrighted work, sold with permission from the rightsholder, may be resold in the United States regardless of where the copy was originally sold, without the consent of the rightsholder. This means that authorized copies of Windows, originally sold outside the United States, may be resold in the US by anyone in lawful possession of them.

I may be understanding this incorrectly but I gather from this that it is legit.

The seller is claiming the keys are for recycled computers. whether that is the source like they told me IDK

Like i said, i might be understanding this incorrectly?
They are not selling used licenses. They are selling licenses sold as bulk to large corporations to end users like you...it is not legal anywhere.
 
They are not selling used licenses. They are selling licenses sold as bulk to large corporations to end users like you...it is not legal anywhere.

you´re not wrong but this is perfectly legal in the eu even if there are pitfalls.

When buying second-hand from "clean" sources, you get an auditable package including any “physical” certificates and all the details of the previous buyer and their declaration of deletion. This is also the reason why practically all legitimate traders target small or medium-sized companies. The whole effort is not worth it for selling a single windows license to private individuals. In the end, this market has also become smaller and smaller due to the ongoing cloud and subscription flood.


Ontopic: i just use windows 10 pro and disable some stuff on the classic way (gpedit.msc). For commercial deployments mostly windows servers, since it a client license is not covered on our typical vm hosts.
 
Last edited:
A lot of the Small Form Factor computers that people like for bare metal BI installs have built-in windows keys that self-authenticate when windows sets up.


I wonder if you could load Proxmox as the OS and transfer the computer’s built-in windows key to the VM?
 
you´re not wrong but this is perfectly legal in the eu even if there are pitfalls.

When buying second-hand from "clean" sources, you get an auditable package including any “physical” certificates and all the details of the previous buyer and their declaration of deletion. This is also the reason why practically all legitimate traders target small or medium-sized companies. The whole effort is not worth it for selling a single windows license to private individuals. In the end, this market has also become smaller and smaller due to the ongoing cloud and subscription flood.


Ontopic: i just use windows 10 pro and disable some stuff on the classic way (gpedit.msc). For commercial deployments mostly windows servers, since it a client license is not covered on our typical vm hosts.
It's 100% unlawful... Otherwise Microsoft would not be able to sell a single license in the EU at anywhere near full price.... These licenses are not meant for individual resale..
 
It's 100% unlawful... Otherwise Microsoft would not be able to sell a single license in the EU at anywhere near full price.... These licenses are not meant for individual resale..

well, the CJEU made this decision more then a decade ago:

The situation regarding the legal background of used software has been developing gradually over a long time. It eventually resulted in a very clear decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2012 which confirmed it is legal to sell previously owned software. The CJEU judgement in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. says that “An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale.”
This means that the sale of “used” and redundant software products is legal. This judgement created a safe, legal framework for the whole European Union ensuring a fair and healthy competition on the European market.


the market for used licenses is quite limited. All larger companies have EA contracts with microsoft, they do not pay “full” prices. And today "windows" is just a subdevision what makes microsoft less money then videogames. All the big money is behind subscriptions.
 
There are ways to reduce some of Windows' bloat so it doesn't need as much RAM or CPU cores to do the same job in a VM. For example Revision | Revision

With that I'd be comfortable running with at least 1 fewer core as there'd be way less chance of some rogue windows process(es) maxing out a core or two for hours for no apparent reason.
 
well, the CJEU made this decision more then a decade ago:

The situation regarding the legal background of used software has been developing gradually over a long time. It eventually resulted in a very clear decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2012 which confirmed it is legal to sell previously owned software. The CJEU judgement in Case C-128/11 UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. says that “An author of software cannot oppose the resale of his ‘used’ licences allowing the use of his programs downloaded from the internet. The exclusive right of distribution of a copy of a computer program covered by such a licence is exhausted on its first sale.”
This means that the sale of “used” and redundant software products is legal. This judgement created a safe, legal framework for the whole European Union ensuring a fair and healthy competition on the European market.


the market for used licenses is quite limited. All larger companies have EA contracts with microsoft, they do not pay “full” prices. And today "windows" is just a subdevision what makes microsoft less money then videogames. All the big money is behind subscriptions.
Again you are conflating two legal issues. This is common with internet lawyering.
1) Selling your legally purchased software to another after you deactivate your copy - which appears to be legal in europe, though I have not searched for newer decisions.
2) Buying software in bulk with multi-licenses and reselling them individually- new or used - illegal.

The ruling in usedsoft specifically prohibited #2 which is what these vendors are doing. Moreover the ruling requires a detailed chain of proof including a notarized certificate from the original buyer - non of which is happening here.
 
Last edited: