|  | | Microsoft Exec Warns On Windows 7 Upgrade Hack | 
Microsoft's Eric Ligman has posted the following on his blog: "First, the feedback, excitement, etc. we've been seeing since the launch of Windows 7 last week has been phenomenal! Thank you to all of you for providing your feedback to us to let us know how your Windows 7 experience is going.
Unfortunately, it looks like it is time to have this conversation again though. Over the past several days there have been various posts, etc. across a variety of social media engines stating that some hack (be it a person or a procedure) shows that a Windows 7 Upgrade disc can perform a clean installation of Windows 7 on a blank drive from a technical perspective. Of course, from the posts I saw, they often forgot to mention a very basic, yet very important piece of information… Technically possible does not always mean legal. Let me explain what I mean:
Here are some very basic facts:
1. When you purchase software, you are purchasing the rights to run the software according to the terms of the End User License Agreement (EULA) that comes with that software.
2. When you install that software, you are agreeing to the terms included in the EULA you purchased. For instance: in the Windows 7 EULA it states, By using the software, you accept these terms. If you do not accept them, do not use the software. Instead, return it to the retailer for a refund or credit.
3. When you purchase an Upgrade license, the included EULA states that you must already own a qualifying full license to upgrade from in order to use the Upgrade license, hence the term Upgrade. For instance: in the Windows 7 EULA it states, To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade.
So when these posts and write-ups state that you can install clean from an Upgrade piece of software and they fail to mention that you need to own a qualifying software license to be legal to use the Upgrade software for the installation, they give the impression that because it is technically possible, it is legal to do. Unfortunately, by doing this, they irresponsibly put end users at risk of loading unlicensed software. Because of this, I am putting this post up to try and clarify the truth behind what an upgrade license is and provides so that hopefully people will not find themselves misled by some of these other posts and articles that may mislead them to believe something that is very wrong due to their lack of inclusion of this important piece of information. If the posts or write-ups you saw did include this information, then kudos to that writer for providing the accurate information.
Now there are many, many, many, many of you out there that already own Windows licenses that qualify for the Windows 7 Upgrade, so this is a non-issue for you. For those of you without an existing Windows license to upgrade from, you should be aware that an Upgrade license by itself is not a license to install and run Windows on your computer. In order to upgrade, you need to have a qualifying license to upgrade from. Again, that's why it is called an upgrade. For you, Windows 7 is available pre-installed on PCs around the world today, or you can purchase a full Windows license from one of the many Microsoft Partners we have, or you can download it today.
I hope this helps clear up any confusion over what an Upgrade really is and is not and who qualifies to install and use an upgrade license in their move to Windows 7.
And please remember, No, OEM Microsoft Windows licenses cannot be transferred to another PC, in case you were wondering if an old OEM Windows license you have laying around or on another PC could qualify for the Windows 7 upgrade on a different PC." | | 13 Comments | | | And? It's not like everything MS does is legal either. lol | | | | Seriously, who cares? he should have saved his keyboard and not bothered | | | | So, this is like something new? Hacks in teh windowz? Oh, the humanity. | | | | Windows 7 is too expensive... | | | | Yeah its too expensive. And every hacks are 'technically possible' , tho they aren't legal. | | | | I really think MS needs to be relax a bit with the whole upgrade issue. Win 7 is too expensive with their failure of Vista, so they really need to give them out for much cheaper price. | | | | Thing is vista really inst all that bad, most of the negativity surrounding it is un-founded and largly fueld by apple (man I wanna slap that guy on the "Im a mac, Im a PC" commercials)
I really believe that if it wasnt for microsofts need to replace vista we'd be getting a service pack for vista right now, but being M$ they gotta capitalize on this, the price is more of a whiner tax then anything, they had to stick it to people | | | | Seven, as an upgrade from Vista it is rather expensive... but who cares about microsoft Rants? | | | | That guy could have said what he had to say in about 3 paragraphs and in much shorter sentences.
He exemplifies what's wrong with corporate culture, high tech and MS in general. Saying too much with too much filler in order to justify their position without any real regard for the practices they *(and their companies) engage in that create the conditions in the first place that lead to the issues they are addressing.
Couldn't he have simply said, if you're not actually upgrading from a Previously Licensed Windows OS, then you'd be illegally using the Win7 Upgrade package?
And sheesh, it's hard to feel sorry for M$, isn't it? I am waiting to hear about the latest Security Flaw in the next latest, greatest, even MORE secure version of Windows OSs.
And the negative criticism about Win Vista is TOTALLY justified imho and is founded on plenty of folks who feel stuck with and pressed upon by an OS that, in many small ways, takes from you your personal control over how you manage your computer and it's system management.
For folks who really don't want to deal with taking care of their systems personally, WinVista (along with XP, btw) is great. If you don't like doing things your way and simply allow someone at MS decide how you want to run your computer, Vista is fine.
I think Win7 goes a long way to addressing many of the serious and more severe negative issues Win Vista has. And not a moment too soon. I was just thinking last year that it might be time to actually have to move up to Vista in the next couple of years as XP is beginning to show it's age. 
This will be the first time I actually get to Skip entirely an OS from MS. And I was a computer user/operator since Dos 2.2!
Doesn't someone like Bill Gates ever see the value in reducing prices to sell more copies at a fair value as being more in line with the traditional concept of the Free Market?
Oh, right. I forgot, Bill, Steve and whoever else currently makes those sorts of decisions never really understood that in the first place. Monopolies tend to overlook the fact that they are not really competing and do what they damn well please.
And that doesn't mean they make crap. Windows, by and large has been berry berry good to me, but it doesn't change the fact that they are, for all intents and purposes, a monopoly. It doesn't change the fact that they overcharge their customer base. It doesn't change the fact that they make a system (I have yet to check out Win7, so this time I might be wrong) that becomes ever more restrictive of personal user control of that system. It doesn't change the fact that what they do doesn't expand the creative uses of their customer base, rather it inhibits it to the Greatest Common Factor (in other words, caters to the masses of less creativity and more simple general use.)
Still, even with all those negatives in place, I have used and probably will continue to use Windows products. Until I can convince my wife to go Linux, that is. So far, she remains wholly unconvinced that we should go that way. You know, she does tend to being right more often than not.
Besides, I love a challenge. Making Windows OSs work how I want them to is more of a challenge than getting the latest version of Linux in whatever flavor to work on my platform by far.
best regards,
dunniteowl | | | | See thats just more biased negativity, and why because you read some article online somewhere that was vista bashing and you took sides with it?
Ive been using vista for about 6 months now and trust me im a power user, I have very few problems with it asside from a couple quams with the interface, other then that its heaps more stable in the XP, it runs smoothly, and actually performs quite well if you have a system that can run it.
Who whined about vista? People with old rigs that didnt have a hope in hell of running it and people with old dinasour printers that werent support, thats pretty much it.
One of the problems with the internet is that stupid un-founded negatiivty spready like wild fire and positive things go largly ignored, hence a few people bitch about vista because they try to install it on their PIII with 512 mb of ram and their 10 year old printer and loe and behold it doesnt work right, so of cour all these blogers start twisting the facts and jsut focusing on the negativity, and all these "news" sites start to post negativity and all the suddent everyone is buying into it and bam vista is branded the devil. Apple plays on this, makes a bunch of really stupid commercials to appease the anti-vista crowd into buying a mac, mean while mac's have just as many problems as windows and actually require more patching but no one ever hears about that because mac users are oblivious to any of apples faults. | | | | Your experience is your experience. I have used Vista for almost as long as it came out. I am a Power User too. However I just don't like it. It limits my creative output and that's a fact of my experience. I am not bashing Vista because I read some stupid article. I am bashing it because, for reasons I have of my own, I do not like being told by my computer that I am not allowed to do something that a previous iteration of the same company's software used to allow me to do.
Its that simple and its a fact.
You're certainly entitled to like Vista, plenty folks do. I'm not one of them, even though I use it and bend it to my will when necessary. Even when I provide technical support to friends and small business owners who do use it regularly. That doesn't mean that I have to use it on the computer of choice for my purposes does it? I don't like it and that's pretty simple. I don't like it for all the reasons I stated and just because I can spend time going through options and registry files and the like to make it do what I wish to do in the manner I wish doesn't make Vista a great product from my perspective. It makes it a less than stellar product that could have been so much more instead.
And as to stupid negativity: arrogant much? Look at what you post about Apple for a good example of stupid negativty. Some pretty blanket statements by a non-apple user, dont'cha think? When you start calling people you don't know 'stupid' and tell us the opinions of others are 'twisted' and make up shit like: Quote: |
One of the problems with the internet is that stupid un-founded negatiivty spready like wild fire and positive things go largly ignored, hence a few people bitch about vista because they try to install it on their PIII with 512 mb of ram and their 10 year old printer and loe and behold it doesnt work right, so of cour all these blogers start twisting the facts and jsut focusing on the negativity...
| it's a little hard to take you seriously as objective in the first place. You feel me?
It's perfectly fine for someone to be negative about aspects of something and still be able to see advantages as well. That's me. I don't think Vista was that good of a replacement for XP. What does Vista do sooo much better than XP that I should have run out and bought a copy right away on release?
What?
DX10? Hah! That's really about it. And that's nothing to write home about. All the other "kewl" things Vista does is possible to some degree with XP, if only they supported that with the appropriate drivers.
Win7 looks like, as I said, that they are actually listening to their negative reviews with an eye to fixing the issues and not repeating the mistakes they made with Vista. And that's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of some of the larger talking heads in the industry and some of them even inside MS.
And for the record, no one said Vista was the Devil, that's Bill Gate's job with Steve Ballmer as his head minion.
And I think the only thing you might've said that was halfway accurate was that last bit about Mac users being oblivious to Apple's faults. Like difficult to upgrade, proprietary parts (can you say Dell, Compaq, IBM or Amstrad?) and closed shop mentality in hardware and software control?
When you bash someone about bashing, it's best to make sure you're as objective about it as you can be. In the alternative, stick to bashing the product and voicing it, as I did, as my opinion, without slamming any one else in the process. At least that way, people can walk away from it knowing that's only how you feel and not that you're trying to insult or slam others in voicing that opinion if they don't agree with yours.
best regards,
dunniteowl | | | | Long winded and somewhat pompus responses win you no bonus points, in what manner exactly does vista 'limit your creativity'? Because of the driver signature enformcement? Ok thats a pain in the ass and shouldnt exist ill give you that but otherwise vista behaves like most any other microsoft operating system, Im a graphic design, web developer and smal lbusiness owner and in no way shape or form does vista 'limit my creativity'.
I may never have owed a mac, nor ever plan to, but I know plenty of people that work for support departments and own computer shops and mac's regularly require and get more updates then windows does, since updates generaly fix problems logic would have it that mac's have just as many problems as pc's, unfurotuently the brainwashed generation of apple fans is blind to it.
In the end vista really isnt a bad OS, it has its flaws but so does anything and needs to be taken with a grain of slat, ultimately the only thing limiting your creativity is yourself. | | | | Well, for the record, neither do short, terse, hypocritical statements. Si vous prefere.
I don't care what you do with your computer, nor should you care what I do with mine, that's all fine and good. My point was that your response to my response was, to be short and terse with no hint of pomposity, was pure hypocrisy.
Where in my post did I indicate that Vista was the Devil? Where did I list that I personally had read an article and became a hater? Where did the whole thing about negativity come from? Oh right, that was you. You talked about how you hate all this negativity and then "spun" your point of view as this: Quote: |
One of the problems with the internet is that stupid un-founded negatiivty spready like wild fire and positive things go largly ignored, hence a few people bitch about vista because they try to install it on their PIII with 512 mb of ram and their 10 year old printer and loe and behold it doesnt work right, so of cour all these blogers start twisting the facts and jsut focusing on the negativity, and all these "news" sites start to post negativity and all the suddent everyone is buying into it and bam vista is branded the devil.
| And, if you're going to try to ream me for being honest about how I feel, why don't you show me some proof about how older printers and obsolete hardware is the reason why Vista got so much negative critiqueing in professional magazines and websites when it was released? Why don't you show me and everyone else here how right you are about folks trying to ruin MicroSoft's good reputation because their old printers and processors and limited RAM caused them to have a bad Vista experience.
What I said was based on my personal experience and was clearly my opinion. If that's long winded and pompous, well fine. At least it's clear and not overwrought with emotionally based diatribe, hyperbole disguised as fact, and sharp barbed insults at another poster, simply because I disagree with them. Unlike yourself.
regards,
dunniteowl | |
|
