Forum archive - Windows 7 Upgrade Makes Some PCs Unusable

Forum Archive Home -> Computer -> Windows 7 Upgrade Makes Some PCs Unusable

Windows 7 Upgrade Makes Some PCs Unusable

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 08:33

: Supposedly, the upgrade from Windows Vista to 7 is the most straightforward yet, thanks to the similarity in underlying software. Unfortunately, some users are finding out that the upgrade to Windows 7 could have disastrous, crippling effects. in a related story microsoft is quoted as saying: it sucks to be them. j/k, on a serious note however, this should be a wake up call to to anyone considering not pirating windows, you spent your money, got shafted by a nasty bug in the install routine and now you're up the creek without a paddle, if you had stolen the software at least you could find some consolation in the fact that you were using an illegal copy and at least you still have the cash in your pocket. so for future reference, the proper procedure is to get a pirated copy, install it, run it for a little while, make sure everything works as it should and then if you're feeling guilty send microsoft a check anonymously to ease your guilty conscience. seriously though, this is one of those reasons that i say piracy should be viewed as a legitimate way for the general public to level the playing field with companies that sell software that doesn't function as intended or claimed and that the end user has no remedy available to him such as returning the software for a refund. i can't tell you how many times over the years i bought software that didn't do what it promised, was buggy as hell, crashed constantly or had some other problem and the developer would only tell me it's my computer hardware's fault. i'm looking at you blaze media pro, pinnacle, win me, avs converter and the list goes on... edit: i just realized that i had not provided a link to the story, so here it is: http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-upgrade-install-problem,8934.html

mh2360 posted 2009 Oct 27 09:01

Why get a "pirate" copy of Windows at all? If you are in a situation where you have a PC with no OS installed and you don't want to cough up some cash for Windows, then Linux is at the the stage now where even novice users can get it up and running with ease. Exactly the same thing happens when you click the Firefox icon in both Windows and Linux, and for every windows app, there's usually a free Linux equivalent. The exception of course is for games. At least with Linux you don't have to worry about whether the next update is going to break your Windows activation crack.

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 27 09:58

No Linux equivalent of AviSynth yet. AviSynth does work with Wine though. I've been playing around with it a bit -- AviSynth + VirtualDub via Wine under Ubuntu.

Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 Oct 27 10:01

Microsoft has such a superior track record with product releases... (when we gonna get that official sarcasm font?). Frankly, anybody who buys a new OS from Microsoft on launch day deserves to get screwed. In fact, anybody who buys a new OS from Microsoft on launch day = beta tester. Wait AT LEAST a year folks.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 27 10:10

You should always do a complete backup before upgrading an existing OS. If not and it all goes pear shaped then tough titties.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 10:13

mh2360 : Why get a "pirate" copy of Windows at all? If you are in a situation where you have a PC with no OS installed and you don't want to cough up some cash for Windows, then Linux is at the the stage now where even novice users can get it up and running with ease. Exactly the same thing happens when you click the Firefox icon in both Windows and Linux, and for every windows app, there's usually a free Linux equivalent. The exception of course is for games. At least with Linux you don't have to worry about whether the next update is going to break your Windows activation crack. alot of what i said was meant tongue-in-cheek, i can't officially advocate "pirating" software, it's against this forum's rules. as for linux, i absolutely agree, hell many distros have been to the point where they could be used as a primary OS for years now, i used to run a win2k/redhat 7 dual boot for years, suse has been top notch for a while, mandrake i found to be kind of iffy, with one version being great and the next blowing chunks, vector soho is definitely one of the better offerings but despite all that my current favorite alternate OS is not linux at all, it's PC-BSD. as a matter of fact, back when vista was first released i said PC-BSD was so good microsoft should have bought the company (before they were bought by ixsystems) and simply ported DX over, added Aero since ms wanted to include it so much and have a nice robust, stable, high performance offering with a minimum amount of investment (i remember reading that vista supposedly cost microsoft something in the range of 100 million bucks to develop!!!) and the OS would be scalable, bulletproof, and they could have had their own version of OS X. but what do i know, i'm just an unemployed exterminator, bill and company are worth billions....

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 10:21

JohnnyMalaria : You should always do a complete backup before upgrading an existing OS. If not and it all goes pear shaped then tough titties. what?!? in what way is it reasonable to assume that upgrading an OS will result in a FUBAR'd system. that's ridiculous, how about some accountability on the part of the developer? how about big business not having the attitude of "f**k our customers, we have their money, it sucks to be them"? an OS upgrade should not result in a hosed system, especially when you are using an upgrade version of the new OS that's specifically designed to upgrade your current OS. hell the word upgrade is even in the product name, "Windows 7 Upgrade", the name isn't "Windows 7 you can go f**k yourself". are you kidding me?

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 10:28

Xylob the Destroyer : Microsoft has such a superior track record with product releases... (when we gonna get that official sarcasm font?). Frankly, anybody who buys a new OS from Microsoft on launch day deserves to get screwed. In fact, anybody who buys a new OS from Microsoft on launch day = beta tester. Wait AT LEAST a year folks. you're absolutely right!!! wait until at least the first service pack is released, hell i'm currently running an OEM version of XP 64 and may eventually upgrade to windows 7 when (or better yet, if) software comes out that takes advantage of DX Compute, at which point i'll also pick up a cheap DX11 video card (probably from ATI) along with a student version of win7 (yeah i'm not a student, and technically i don't qualify, but i thought discrimination was illegal in this country). at any rate i will definitely wait until all the teething problems are resolved...

ocgw posted 2009 Oct 27 10:57

deadrats : : Supposedly, the upgrade from Windows Vista to 7 is the most straightforward yet, thanks to the similarity in underlying software. Unfortunately, some users are finding out that the upgrade to Windows 7 could have disastrous, crippling effects. in a related story microsoft is quoted as saying: it sucks to be them. j/k, on a serious note however, this should be a wake up call to to anyone considering not pirating windows, you spent your money, got shafted by a nasty bug in the install routine and now you're up the creek without a paddle, if you had stolen the software at least you could find some consolation in the fact that you were using an illegal copy and at least you still have the cash in your pocket. so for future reference, the proper procedure is to get a pirated copy, install it, run it for a little while, make sure everything works as it should and then if you're feeling guilty send microsoft a check anonymously to ease your guilty conscience. seriously though, this is one of those reasons that i say piracy should be viewed as a legitimate way for the general public to level the playing field with companies that sell software that doesn't function as intended or claimed and that the end user has no remedy available to him such as returning the software for a refund. i can't tell you how many times over the years i bought software that didn't do what it promised, was buggy as hell, crashed constantly or had some other problem and the developer would only tell me it's my computer hardware's fault. i'm looking at you blaze media pro, pinnacle, win me, avs converter and the list goes on... or just buy a legit copy and throw it in the drawer ocgw peace

ocgw posted 2009 Oct 27 11:06

deadrats : JohnnyMalaria : You should always do a complete backup before upgrading an existing OS. If not and it all goes pear shaped then tough titties. what?!? in what way is it reasonable to assume that upgrading an OS will result in a FUBAR'd system. that's ridiculous, how about some accountability on the part of the developer? how about big business not having the attitude of "f**k our customers, we have their money, it sucks to be them"? an OS upgrade should not result in a hosed system, especially when you are using an upgrade version of the new OS that's specifically designed to upgrade your current OS. hell the word upgrade is even in the product name, "Windows 7 Upgrade", the name isn't "Windows 7 you can go f**k yourself". are you kidding me? I did a complete backup of Windows 7 RC 7100 before I loaded Win 7 Ultimate "Signature Edition", and good thing too, because something went wrong, I used a Acronis system image to go back to RC until the weekend when I had plenty of time, and installed Win 7 Sig over again, everything is fine now Once in while a install doesn't go smoothly in my experience w/ any OS Or is it just me? lol ps. I tried installing Win 7 32-bit on a old HP P4 SFF system and it would not boot from the optical drive, put in XP SP2 and it booted and installed, "go figure" ocgw peace

handyguy posted 2009 Oct 27 11:17

MS has a free download of a compatibility checker & if you run that it says how you should install it & what works with it.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 27 11:53

deadrats : i can't tell you how many times over the years i bought software that didn't do what it promised, was buggy as hell, crashed constantly or had some other problem and the developer would only tell me it's my computer hardware's fault. Yet you find ridiculous the suggestion that you should backup your system before upgrading an OS. Your many times over the years should have taught you that sh!t can happen. I can understand a casual PC owner making the assumption that everything will go fine but not someone with the experiences you have had. No sympathy for anyone who does know better yet fails to backup their system and ends up with it hosed.

Noahtuck posted 2009 Oct 27 12:09

I always back everything up thats important, then wipe clean and do a fresh complete install of any OS, anytime i ever used an "upgrade" disc instead of a full version, it always ended up being more work then just starting fresh.

stiltman posted 2009 Oct 27 12:36

OSX had the same problem, some got hosed with the upgrade. Linux has done the same thing and many more times than Windows or OSx It's a fact of life, No OS manufacture can test ALL combinations of drivers and software installed on the hardware of choice. If you don't backup your important data, it's your own damn fault.

Sartori posted 2009 Oct 27 12:52

Ive lost quite a few things over the years , the only person Ive blamed is myself . Dont like Windows ? delete it and stop whining .

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 27 13:39

Sartori : Ive lost quite a few things over the years , the only person Ive blamed is myself . Dont like Windows ? delete it and stop whining . Yes, that's why the shrink wrap license for virtually every software package basically says: "We don't guarantee this software does anything. If it doesn't work as advertised, or if it screws up your computer, that's your problem. We are only liable for the cost of this software. No returns are allowed once you opened the package. You have no choice but to agree to these license terms because you had to open the package to see the terms. You're fucked. We're not."

MOVIEGEEK posted 2009 Oct 27 13:42

Yea another rant by deadrats. :roll: In the future you might want to post some links to backup your claims.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 13:45

JohnnyMalaria : deadrats : i can't tell you how many times over the years i bought software that didn't do what it promised, was buggy as hell, crashed constantly or had some other problem and the developer would only tell me it's my computer hardware's fault. Yet you find ridiculous the suggestion that you should backup your system before upgrading an OS. Your many times over the years should have taught you that sh!t can happen. I can understand a casual PC owner making the assumption that everything will go fine but not someone with the experiences you have had. No sympathy for anyone who does know better yet fails to backup their system and ends up with it hosed. it should be noted that in this case there is no lose of data, so "backing up" doesn't do you a lick of good, what happens is the upgrade fails and you are left with a non-functioning system, you still need to re-install the old OS, back up or no back up, and even if you made an image of the old installation you still need to restore it from the image. no matter which way you look at it "backing up" does nothing to prevent this from happening, these people bought an upgrade version of win7 and had a reasonable expectation to use it that way, in fact that is the only way they can legally use it, technically it's illegal to do a clean install using an upgrade edition, that's why the option for a clean install isn't available when you boot up with an upgrade version. so i don't what you or anyone else in this thread is thinking when they say it's the users fault for not backing up, in what way do you guys think that would have helped?

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 13:50

jagabo : Sartori : Ive lost quite a few things over the years , the only person Ive blamed is myself . Dont like Windows ? delete it and stop whining . Yes, that's why the shrink wrap license for virtually every software package basically says: "We don't guarantee this software does anything. If it doesn't work as advertised, or if it screws up your computer, that's your problem. We are only liable for the cost of this software. No returns are allowed once you opened the package. You have no choice but to agree to these license terms because you had to open the package to see the terms. You're fucked. We're not." actually there was a case in california that said "shrink wrap" licenses weren't valid because you don't actually get a chance to see the eula until after you have opened the package at which point its too late. i personally can't stand software companies specifically for that reason, their business model borders on being a scam. about the only thing that sickens me more than the software companies are the clowns that sit here and defend them using idiotic arguments, which quite frankly one can only assume are put forth by those that make their living via the scam business model that is software sales.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 13:53

MOVIEGEEK : Yea another rant by deadrats. :roll: In the future you might want to post some links to backup your claims. which "claims" would you like backed up? i'm more than happy to accommodate.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 13:57

Noahtuck : I always back everything up thats important, then wipe clean and do a fresh complete install of any OS, anytime i ever used an "upgrade" disc instead of a full version, it always ended up being more work then just starting fresh. we just went through this in another thread, it's illegal to do a clean install using "upgrade" media, that's why the option for a clean install is deactivated, you are effectively "pirating" the full version by using "upgrade" media to do a clean install, if you are going to do that you might as well pirate completely and just download the OS from a torrent site.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 14:06

stiltman : OSX had the same problem, some got hosed with the upgrade. Linux has done the same thing and many more times than Windows or OSx It's a fact of life, No OS manufacture can test ALL combinations of drivers and software installed on the hardware of choice. If you don't backup your important data, it's your own damn fault. 3 things: 1) the difference is that if this happens with linux at least you can console yourself that you got the OS for free so you're not out any cash in addition to ending up with a non-functioning system, 2) data loss should never be a factor in a software upgrade, in the case of Snow Leopard its absolutely inexcusable that an OS upgrade resulted in data corruption, such a thing points to sloppy programming, the file system should not be touched unless the user explicitly tells the install routine to change over to another file system, like say going from UFS to HFS+, if the file system isn't touch there is no reason for any data loss other than OS specific settings being overwritten. 3) in this case there is no data loss just the system is left unusable so backing up your data wouldn't do squat to mitigate the outcome, capice?

Sartori posted 2009 Oct 27 14:48

deadrats : blah blah blah..... 3) in this case there is no data loss just the system is left unusable so backing up your data wouldn't do squat to mitigate the outcome, capice? Im phoning the Guiness Book of World Records to lay claim to the Worlds Most Patronising Forum Answer for you

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 15:18

Sartori : deadrats : blah blah blah..... 3) in this case there is no data loss just the system is left unusable so backing up your data wouldn't do squat to mitigate the outcome, capice? Im phoning the Guiness Book of World Records to lay claim to the Worlds Most Patronising Forum Answer for you before you do that perhaps you should ask them for the proper spelling of their organization: http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/ if you are going post a smart ass reply, the least you could do is make sure you spell all the words correctly; in addition to misspelling Guinness you also misspelled patronizing. let me guess, you were trying to upgrade your browser's built in spell checker and something went wrong, so it no longer works. i personally blame you. btw, because i don't want this post to be seen as totally negative allow me to just say that i would totally do your avatar. thank you, come again.

Jim44 posted 2009 Oct 27 15:19

deadrats : we just went through this in another thread, it's illegal to do a clean install using "upgrade" media, that's why the option for a clean install is deactivated, Please provide proof of this, seeing as Microsoft themselves says when migrating from XP->Win7 with upgrade media you must do a clean install. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/upgrade?os=other "Upgrading from Windows XP If your current PC can run Windows 7, you can upgrade it. Note that you can use upgrade media, but you must perform a custom installation of Windows 7, which doesn't keep any of your files, programs, or settings." And every report I've read indicates there is no such "deactivation" of the "Custom" option on upgrade media. This is exactly what I plan on doing (and following Paul Thurrott's tips on doing this: http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/clean_install_upgrade_media.asp ), but haven't had a chance yet to crack open my upgrade copy (too many others thing to do before I can even prep for the upgrade). And frankly, unless you've never, ever used any version of Windows, you are "upgrading" and can use upgrade media; nothing "illegal" about that at all.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 15:55

Jim44 : deadrats : we just went through this in another thread, it's illegal to do a clean install using "upgrade" media, that's why the option for a clean install is deactivated, Please provide proof of this, seeing as Microsoft themselves says when migrating from XP->Win7 with upgrade media you must do a clean install. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/products/upgrade?os=other "Upgrading from Windows XP If your current PC can run Windows 7, you can upgrade it. Note that you can use upgrade media, but you must perform a custom installation of Windows 7, which doesn't keep any of your files, programs, or settings." And every report I've read indicates there is no such "deactivation" of the "Custom" option on upgrade media. This is exactly what I plan on doing (and following Paul Thurrott's tips on doing this: http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/clean_install_upgrade_media.asp ), but haven't had a chance yet to crack open my upgrade copy (too many others thing to do before I can even prep for the upgrade). And frankly, unless you've never, ever used any version of Windows, you are "upgrading" and can use upgrade media; nothing "illegal" about that at all. the proof is in the pudding, if you have an "upgrade" version of vista the option for a clean install is not available, if you have a full version of vista the upgrade option is not available. furthermore, the upgrade version is significantly cheaper than the full version, why would microsoft allow you to use an upgrade version the same way you would a clean install. note also in the quote from microsoft it doesn't say you must do a "clean" install, it says you must do a "custom" install. lastly, download the EULA right from microsoft and read through it: http://www.microsoft.com/about/legal/useterms/default.aspx under section 8 there it says in part: : you may not work around any technical limitations of the software and under section 13 it says: : to use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade. upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. after you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from. if the eula explicitly forbids one from working around any technical limitations of the software and the install routine doesn't allow you to perform a clean install with upgrade media without having to use a work around then how can anyone think that microsoft's licensing terms allows for the clean install using upgrade media?

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 16:10

for anyone that still doubts that you are not legally allowed to do a clean install using upgrade media: straight from microsoft: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/930985/en-us : This problem occurs because Windows Vista does not check upgrade compliance. Therefore, you cannot use an upgrade key to perform a clean installation of Windows Vista. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_upgrade_clean.asp : Is this legal? One might naturally wonder whether the aforementioned instructions describe an action that is legal or ethical. After all, anyone could purchase an Upgrade version of Windows Vista (therefore saving a lot of money when compared to a Full version) and use it to perform a clean install even if they don't own a previous, compliant Window version. After telling my "Windows Vista Secrets" coauthor Brian Livingston about this workaround, he wrote that using this process was indeed ethical, in his opinion. "Microsoft itself created the upgrade process," he wrote in a newsletter article describing the workaround. "The company designed Vista to support upgrading it over a previously installed copy of XP, W2K Pro, or Vista itself. This isn't a black-hat hacker exploit. It's something that's been deliberately programmed into the approved setup routine." Fair enough. Of course, if you do use this workaround to clean install Vista with the Upgrade media, and you don't own a previous, compliant version of Windows, you're most certainly violating the Windows EULA and, thus, breaking the law. Proceed at your own risk. as paul points out if you use the workaround to clean install vista (and windows 7) without owning a compliant previous version of windows, you are pirating the software. however, microsoft themselves make it clear in the eula that they do not allow for any workaround to be used to bypass any software limitation and they further make it clear in their knowledge base that clean installing using an upgrade key is not supported, thus if you perform a clean install using an upgrade version of vista (or win 7, they have the same eula) you are pirating the OS. case closed.

Noahtuck posted 2009 Oct 27 16:16

deadrats : Noahtuck : I always back everything up thats important, then wipe clean and do a fresh complete install of any OS, anytime i ever used an "upgrade" disc instead of a full version, it always ended up being more work then just starting fresh. we just went through this in another thread, it's illegal to do a clean install using "upgrade" media, that's why the option for a clean install is deactivated, you are effectively "pirating" the full version by using "upgrade" media to do a clean install, if you are going to do that you might as well pirate completely and just download the OS from a torrent site. Who the hell said i was using an "upgrade" disc to do a full install ?? :lol: :lol: I always buy the FULL version to do exactly what i said. 8)

Xylob the Destroyer posted 2009 Oct 27 16:27

Micro$oft upgrade discs ARE full versions - they just have some 'extra' code to check for previous version or ask for previous version install disc. I've done a complete install (many times) with brand new HD using upgrade disc - all you have to do is put the previous version install disc in when it asks.

wulf109 posted 2009 Oct 27 17:12

I think Microsoft has made a huge error in not allowing upgrades from XP. There are probably millions of users who did not convert to Vista and still use XP. In my case I installed over XP but W7 moved all my all old files into a directory called oldwindows. It did leave non-windows files on the HD,but it moved all Program Files to the oldwindows directory.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 27 17:57

deadrats : so i don't what you or anyone else in this thread is thinking when they say it's the users fault for not backing up, in what way do you guys think that would have helped? Er, let's see, they would be able to get the system back to the state it was in before attempting the upgrade. Where on earth did you get any hint that I was talking about user data backup - I'm talking about a full system backup as used for recovery after other catastrophic failures. Not backing up prior to a major OS update is as stupid and deserving of the consequences as not having antivirus software (and using it). Did you recently hose your system without a backup and are ranting so as to shift the blame elsewhere? Seems as such.

Noahtuck posted 2009 Oct 27 18:42

Xylob the Destroyer : Micro$oft upgrade discs ARE full versions - they just have some 'extra' code to check for previous version or ask for previous version install disc. I've done a complete install (many times) with brand new HD using upgrade disc - all you have to do is put the previous version install disc in when it asks. :lol: :lol: Now that you mention it, i remember doing stuff like that back in the day with win95 & 98 :lol: I still have windows 3.1 on a disc i used to use to install win95 on a freshly formatted drive. It would ask you to locate it, i would browse to the cd and open the folder, then after it found it i would put the other disc back in and install. :lol: I forgot all about that!! But i never bothered with XPpro or Vista Ultimate, i just bought the full versions, but never at retail prices.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 19:20

JohnnyMalaria : Did you recently hose your system without a backup and are ranting so as to shift the blame elsewhere? Seems as such. i'm going to assume that you are not aware that vista and win 7 automatically back up your current windows install to Windows.old and if something goes wrong during the install of the new OS the install routine will automatically restore your old install from the backup that was made. this behavior is present in the "full" variants (i have encountered and talked about this before) and i had always assumed that it was present in the "upgrade" variants as well. something obviously is going wrong for these folks, for whatever reason the install routine on the student upgrade versions isn't doing what it was designed to do. no matter which way you look like at it, the problem lies with the software and not the end user. now it's possible to restore your previous windows install manually if you know what you're doing by booting off your old windows media, entering the command console and copying the contents of Windows.old to their proper directories and then fixing the mbr, but if you don't have the original media you're SOL. in all honesty it's irrelevant, when you purchase a piece of software it should do what it promises, i would expect the small apps you code to perform the task you claim they do and i would expect you to man up if they didn't, not to tell me that it sucks to be me. when the software a company sells to the public doesn't perform as claimed then the company has effectively ripped off the consumer and they deserve all the piracy that comes their way.

rallynavvie posted 2009 Oct 27 20:40

OMG I was ripped off twice! :o

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 27 21:19

rallynavvie : OMG I was ripped off twice! :o you certainly were if you actually bought 2 copies of win 7 ultimate which costs $300 for the retails version and $200 for the oem version, you could have bought a family pack (3 licenses) of win 7 home premium for $150, or win 7 pro for $30 (that's the student version, if you feel bad for bill and co just sign up for a class at the local community college, buy the software and then drop the class). as the old saying goes "a fool and his money are soon parted", anyone that would spend $600 on 2 win 7 ultimate licenses needs to have his head examined.

rallynavvie posted 2009 Oct 28 07:25

Or I spent $50 each on them because I work in IT and know where to acquire things. I don't need actual boxed copies anyway since I have an MSDN and TNP subscriptions. These are for family.

ranchhand posted 2009 Oct 28 12:36

: can't tell you how many times over the years i bought software that didn't do what it promised, was buggy as hell, crashed constantly or had some other problem and the developer would only tell me it's my computer hardware's fault I know I'm coming in late on this, but I couldn't agree more. I can't even begin to count the number of "shoemaker" software packages I have purchased for the last 30 years, and ended up tossing. Hell, I remember spending hours sitting in front of old Windows 3.xxx trying to fix the latest corruption crash. Look at Windows ME - I will never forgive M/Soft for pawning that manure on the public, and they new damn well that folks were going to confuse it with the new NTFS system M/Soft had in the works that every one was expecting around the turn of our century. I remember forums were loaded with bewildered posters trying to fix their crashed and corrupted systems. And sure enough, XP came out a few months later. No pity on my end for software companies.

stiltman posted 2009 Oct 28 21:30

rallynavvie : Or I spent $50 each on them because I work in IT and know where to acquire things. I don't need actual boxed copies anyway since I have an MSDN and TNP subscriptions. These are for family. Or like me and have my buddy that works for MS pick up a copy from the employee store :)

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 28 22:33

Dear Mr. DeadRats: Go to Paul Thurot's windows supersite and get a clue. It is NOT illegal to make a clean install with Windows7. Its just tricky and MS won't tell you the tricks. They never told the tricks for Windows Vista either but they also didn't stop them with two service packs and now with Windows 7. Clearly they don't want to broadcast the method but clearly they also don't want to stop it. Its needed for people whose HDD die. And what ever happened to Geeks using their using their brains. DUAL BOOT people. Really, dual booting is the way to go especially if you have XP. Keep the old while you get used the new and get a clean install at the same time. I recommend this to anyone with even a modicum of skill. For those without a clue as to how to dual boot they are afraid of installing themselves anyway. Ethelred

johns0 posted 2009 Oct 29 03:28

If its like any other upgrade versions of windows to do a clean install just pop in the disc and start to install,it will ask for the original vista disc to verify that its being upgraded,then pop out the disc and put in the upgrade disc and continue the install.

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 29 07:18

That worked with XP. Not anymore. Not since Vista. Neither Vista nor Windows 7 works that way. Both require that the qualifying product be INSTALLED on the computer. An appearance of installation, such as a copy of an installation from another machine or a hard drive from another, may be close enough. Installing Windows 7 twice works, if done right. But just switching out the disk for an old installation CD won't work. License wise the rule is that you must own a previous version of Windows, either XP or Vista. If you own it you are qualified to buy an upgrade. I saw someone say that Windows 2000 works but I don't remember it being on the box. I take it that isn't an upgrade version of Vista in your Computer Details? I am using an OEM XP myself but this requirement of an actual installed qualifier is well known. It apparently is due to the changes in way new PCs are sold without install disks. Which is likely the reason that the double install work around functions as well. No install disc for most so most can't simply swap disks anymore. What idiot decided that its "disc" for singular and "disks" for plural? I am tempted to rebel against this stupid spelling rule that seems based on the tendency for English to have irregularities just to be difficult. Ethelred

lordsmurf posted 2009 Oct 29 09:03

Dual booting is so 1990s. KVM two systems or virtualize.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 29 10:00

Ethlred : It is NOT illegal to make a clean install with Windows7. i did not say it was illegal to do a clean install with windows 7, i said it's illegal to do a clean install with windows 7 upgrade, big difference. furthermore, Pauly is advocating piracy and giving instructions on how to do it. as i pointed out already, the Win 7 EULA explicitly forbids the user from working around any technical limitation of the software and microsoft makes a point of disabling the "clean install" option on "upgrade disks", therefore it is illegal to perform a clean install using "upgrade" media, pure and simple. if you have a problem with that i suggest you take it up with microsoft themselves, better yet, contact microsoft tech support and ask them what microsoft's stance on the matter is. edit: hopefully this will put all this to rest: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1477&tag=content;col1 : So, does this mean I can install an upgrade version on a new PC I’m building? From a technical point of view, yes. But from a licensing point of view, absolutely not. The discounted price for an upgrade applies because you already paid for a license on the system you’re upgrading. If you are building a new PC, you need a full license from a retail or OEM package. who's your daddy?

rallynavvie posted 2009 Oct 29 10:19

lordsmurf : Dual booting is so 1990s. KVM two systems or virtualize. This. Not sure about the VirtualPC instance of XP that can be added to Win7 but I know with VMware you can use the free converter to capture your existing Windows machine into a VM that can then be used with Workstation (not free) or Player (free). Before wiping my old laptop to Linux I used P2V to grab a VM of the XP build which was on it so that I could pull it up and reference settings or docs that I didn't back up from it on any of my computers (even my Mac). The only thing virtualization doesn't allow still is use of some of your PCI devices (like TV tuners for instance) but there are creative workaround to these such as using USB peripherals (as USB passthrough is pretty well-supported in VMs).

Jim44 posted 2009 Oct 29 11:59

deadrats : Ethlred : It is NOT illegal to make a clean install with Windows7. i did not say it was illegal to do a clean install with windows 7, i said it's illegal to do a clean install with windows 7 upgrade, big difference. And there a big difference between doing a clean install on a system that already has a legal copy of Windows, and as you quoted below, a clean, never-been-used computer. I agree with your quote about the latter, however you seem to be missing the former point most (at least, I) have been making. I already have a full, legal copy of XP, which I bought when I built this PC from scratch, as was appropriate. I bought upgrade media this time and will be doing a "clean" install on that same machine; i.e. I will be wiping out my existing XP install and installing 7 in it's place on the same disc, same hardware. That's an "upgrade", no matter how much you may want to disagree. : edit: hopefully this will put all this to rest: http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1477&tag=content;col1 : So, does this mean I can install an upgrade version on a new PC I’m building? From a technical point of view, yes. But from a licensing point of view, absolutely not. The discounted price for an upgrade applies because you already paid for a license on the system you’re upgrading. If you are building a new PC, you need a full license from a retail or OEM package. As I said, this is NOT a new PC, but the same one that has XP on it. Why you can't seem to get that straight, I have no idea.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 29 16:27

Jim44 : And there a big difference between doing a clean install on a system that already has a legal copy of Windows, and as you quoted below, a clean, never-been-used computer. I agree with your quote about the latter, however you seem to be missing the former point most (at least, I) have been making. I already have a full, legal copy of XP, which I bought when I built this PC from scratch, as was appropriate. I bought upgrade media this time and will be doing a "clean" install on that same machine; i.e. I will be wiping out my existing XP install and installing 7 in it's place on the same disc, same hardware. That's an "upgrade", no matter how much you may want to disagree. As I said, this is NOT a new PC, but the same one that has XP on it. Why you can't seem to get that straight, I have no idea. maybe if i explain this one last different way: starting with Vista and continuing with Win 7 microsoft changed the EULA and added language that explicitly disallows the end user from circumventing any technical restriction present in the software. keep that in mind, i will be getting back to it in a second. prior to Vista, if you had "upgrade" media, the install routine would prompt you to install a qualifying windows disk, for instance if you were upgrading to xp pro it would prompt you for a windows cd, you could pop in your win 2k, win me or win 98, the install routine would check the disk, and then prompt you to reinstall the xp pro upgrade cd and you could proceed with the installation even if the pc had no OS at all, if any of the above OSes were already installed then the xp pro installation would proceed without any prompts. starting with Vista microsoft changed the installer so that the upgrade option is only available if a qualifying OS is already installed, if no OS is installed then the option to upgrade is not available, the installer won't prompt you for a qualifying windows media, even if you have the "upgrade" version of Vista. do you want to know why they did that? because it was possible to trick the installer with "pirated" media, if you knew what you were doing you didn't need a working win 2k/me/98 cd, it was possible to fake it and still get the installer to install xp home/pro. so microsoft wanted to close that loophole and make sure that what the end user was claiming was a qualifying license for upgrade was indeed legit and the only way they could do that was by requiring that upgrades only be made one a pc with a fully installed OS, and preferably one that was already activated, i.e. xp. now do you understand, thanks to the change in the language of the EULA and to the way the windows installer now works, doing an upgrade without having a qualifying windows installation up and running is not permitted, if you buy an "upgrade" version of vista or 7, then you must have a windows OS up and running before you can use it, thus doing a clean install with an upgrade of vista or 7 is illegal, it's a consequence of the language in the EULA i quoted earlier. now i agree with you, you purchased an upgrade license, have a qualifying xp license, but unfortunately you are not legally allowed to do a clean install with the upgrade media, you can still use it, but the only legal way is to perform a clean install of xp, then upgrade from that installation. i'm sorry if you or anyone else doesn't like it but thats the way it is. of course an easy way to avoid all this bullshit is to find a copy of the student edition of win 7 for $30 and not be a suckker that pays a couple of hundred for an upgrade version.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 29 18:44

Microsoft's EULA for Vista : 13. UPGRADES. To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade. Upon upgrade, this agreement takes the place of the agreement for the software you upgraded from. After you upgrade, you may no longer use the software you upgraded from. Jim44 : I already have a full, legal copy of XP, which I bought when I built this PC from scratch, as was appropriate. I bought upgrade media this time and will be doing a "clean" install on that same machine; i.e. I will be wiping out my existing XP install and installing 7 in it's place on the same disc, same hardware. That's an "upgrade", no matter how much you may want to disagree. A clean Vista install can easily be performed even if XP is already on there. If the installer lets Jim install Vista without XP being there, it does not violate the EULA. Similarly, creating a second partition, installing Vista to it and then nuking the XP partition doesn't infringe either.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 29 20:28

JohnnyMalaria : A clean Vista install can easily be performed even if XP is already on there. If the installer lets Jim install Vista without XP being there, it does not violate the EULA. Similarly, creating a second partition, installing Vista to it and then nuking the XP partition doesn't infringe either. that's the part that everyone seems not to be able to understand no matter how many times i say it: the vista (and win 7) installer on the upgrade editions of said OSes do not allow the installation to proceed unless an existing qualifying OS is already installed, i speak from experience, this is all over the 'net, its not something i dreamed up. that is why with vista you had to do the so-called "double install" trick, since the installer allows you to install vista (and win 7) without using a product key (you must install it within 30 days, but you can bypass that as well), you do a clean install of vista without entering a key (and the installer assumes that you have purchased a "full" version), then when that installation is up and running you would re-run the vista (or win 7) installer and this time use the "upgrade" key that came with the version you purchased. again, this is all very well known, just google "double install trick + vista" and you'll see tons of site with the how-to. however, as i have said about a dozen times, you are bypassing a limitation of the software if you do this and since as i already said, section 8 of the EULA explicitly forbids the bypassing of software limitations, then you are technically committing an act of piracy. now if xp is already on their, then there is no need to do any of this, the vista/win 7 installers allow you to proceed as you wish and their is no need to "trick" the installer nor is there a need for a second partition. anyone that doesn't believe me, try it yourself, no installed OS, no clean install using "upgrade" vista/win 7 product key, and thus you go down a road that violates section 8 of the EULA when you follow the advice of the various website on how to get around the vista/win 7 installer. i don't knwo how i can be any clearer.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 29 21:18

Your interpretation of Section 8 is just that - your interpretation. Mine is that - per 13 - purchasing the upgrade grants you the same licensing rights as purchasing the full version. The EULA is exactly the same for both. I certainly would not interpret the first bullet item in 8 the way you have but rather that it means you won't try to convert a Home Basic to Ultimate or Client to Server etc. But, since neither you or I are intellectual property attorneys, it is a pointless argument. If Jim44 has got an upgrade license install of Vista on a machine that had XP on it and he no longer uses that XP license then it ain't piracy.

rallynavvie posted 2009 Oct 29 21:26

The silly thing is you all are arguing about consumer licensing. M$ could give two shits about consumer licensing since most people buy their computers from OEMs like Dell, HP, and Sony. The money M$ makes from licensing comes from the enterprise side where their shenanigans is amplified from these arguments by 4-5 orders of magnitude. This is mostly semantics.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 29 22:01

JohnnyMalaria : Your interpretation of Section 8 is just that - your interpretation. fine then how do you interpret the following statement: : you may not work around any technical limitations of the software i'm dying to hear what you think the above quote means.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 29 22:18

rallynavvie : The silly thing is you all are arguing about consumer licensing. M$ could give two shits about consumer licensing since most people buy their computers from OEMs like Dell, HP, and Sony. The money M$ makes from licensing comes from the enterprise side where their shenanigans is amplified from these arguments by 4-5 orders of magnitude. This is mostly semantics. personally i don't care, my stance on software policy is well known, this all started in another thread where a poster was asking for help doing a clean install with win 7 upgrade, a couple of posters provided links on how to perform the action, and i responded to one of them that technically its illegal to do that and that in the interest of consistency in applying this forum's rules said links should not be provided, since i wouldn't be allowed to provide a link to a torrent site where he could just download an iso. a mod didn't close the thread but did remove the links. i then referenced that thread in this thread and some asked for links to back up what i was saying. i have done so but these same people that would start bitching if i provided torrent links for win 7 have no problem justifying what effectively is a partial piracy and "partial piracy" is no better than full piracy. hell, if you really want to get technical about it, buying and using the student version of windows is also illegal if you are not a student at a qualifying college, but people still do it. i guarantee you these same people would be all up in my ass if i simply advised someone to just download it from somewhereontheweb.com. basically this all started as a way of ensuring some consistency in the application of the rules of this forum and it has degenerated into a group of people that wish to justify violating the windows EULA simply because they find it inconvenient. me, i don't like hypocrisy, if you're going to violate the EULA in one way and do something you're not legally allowed to do then i say f**k it, pirate the OS flat out and be done with it. but don't here and act like some goody two shoes that all your software is fully legal because clearly its not.

AuroEdge posted 2009 Oct 29 22:51

I'm one of those guys who gave Microsoft the money for the upgrade and got shafted. Basically my PC is unable to boot to Windows 7 period. On a side note, do you guys know if I can use a product key for Windows 7 Pro on a Windows 7 Ultimate installation disc? It was my understanding all discs of Windows 7 contain everything for all versions but what was available depended on the Product Key you put in. Just wondering since the Windows 7 64-bit download installation file they provide will only install from a 64-bit operating system. How thoughtful!

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 29 22:59

: i did not say it was illegal to do a clean install with windows 7, i said it's illegal to do a clean install with windows 7 upgrade, big difference. Sorry that I failed your redundancy check. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE UPGRADE VERSION. So I say it again. It is NOT illegal to make a clean install with Windows 7 UPGRADE. Satisfied? Your wrong. : furthermore, Pauly is advocating piracy and giving instructions on how to do it. False. He is telling to do things that MS allows and IS AWARE OF. He works WITH MS. He signs their NDS forms. They read his site. They know what he is doing and has been doing since he wrote the same thing about VISTA. It is NOT piracy to install UPGRADE versions of ANY version of Windows if you have PAID for the qualifying product. Now quit inventing laws without being elected. if you have a problem with that i suggest you take it up with Microsoft themselves. MS doesn't have a problem with Paul. So neither do I. How about tell MS what they already know. : If you are building a new PC, you need a full license from a retail or OEM package. Which I already said. A full license. Which is not the same as an INSTALLED license. You are claiming things that MS has had YEARS to act on. They have not. They have not told Paul that what he was advocating was illegal. If they don't think it is why do you? My Daddy is dead. So is your argument. Ethelred

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 29 23:22

lordsmurf : Dual booting is so 1990s. KVM two systems or virtualize. If only I could afford to have two good machines. Heck ONE good machine at the moment is beyond me. VMs are not the right answer for anyone that wants a full speed install. The idea I am advocating is not keep two systems but to use the dual boot to cover people during the transition and to avoid the difficulties some seem to be having with getting a clean install. Do you know if the Window 7 installer can recoganise a VM as a qualifying installation? If so then it would be a good way to go for many geeks. Unfortunately it won't do for most people as they have enough difficulty just installing ANY software. Really people actually ask me if THEY, as opposed to a Computer God, can install Windows Office. Any version. At all. And will the service department install it for them. I sometimes wonder how they managed to get to the store. Surely turning the key in the ignition is a major strain. No I don't say that to them. I usually don't even think it while talking to them. Its after that it comes out of the abyss of my mind. Then I remind myself that they have let fear override their sense. Few are really that clueless. Then I try to sell them a book. Amazingly many would prefer to use a program to learn. Weird that one is. Ethelred

rallynavvie posted 2009 Oct 30 07:07

Ethlred : Do you know if the Window 7 installer can recoganise a VM as a qualifying installation? Oh my, no it will not. Not unless you're installing Windows 7 within that VM. Host and guest should be treated as two separate machines.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 30 08:59

AuroEdge : I'm one of those guys who gave Microsoft the money for the upgrade and got shafted. Basically my PC is unable to boot to Windows 7 period. On a side note, do you guys know if I can use a product key for Windows 7 Pro on a Windows 7 Ultimate installation disc? It was my understanding all discs of Windows 7 contain everything for all versions but what was available depended on the Product Key you put in. Just wondering since the Windows 7 64-bit download installation file they provide will only install from a 64-bit operating system. How thoughtful! the media that comes in the package doesn't change (unlike pre-Vista windows) all that changes is the product key, so you can use any key you want to install any version you want, in fact there isn't even a difference between "upgrade" media and "full" media, they are the exact same thing, there is nothing technically stopping you from using a "full" key with the "upgrade" edition you bought. as a side note, i'm not sure it's technically possible to upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS regardless of the OS in question, you are correct that it's not possible to upgrade to 64 bit win 7 from a 32 bit OS but i'm also fairly certain that its not possible to do that with any OS, not linux, not unix, not solaris, and not OS X.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 30 09:03

Ethlred : You are claiming things that MS has had YEARS to act on. They have not. They have not told Paul that what he was advocating was illegal. If they don't think it is why do you? what the f are you talking about? taken right from his website, on the page where he talks about doing a clean install using Vista upgrade media: http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_upgrade_clean.asp : This is an interesting and viable workaround for anyone who owns a previous Windows version but would like to perform a clean install of the new operating system on their existing hardware. While I'm a bit nervous about legal implications and Microsoft's ability to cut off this process in the future, I'm glad that innocent Windows upgraders do in fact have all the options that were available to them in previous Windows versions. For its part in this silliness, Microsoft gets a virtual slap on the wrist: Sometimes, it seems, the company forgets that Windows is expensive and paying customers should be able to easily install the new OS without taking on the added clutter of a previous Windows installation. and he also says: : Proceed at your own risk. now i will grant you that he doesn't address any legal issues in his win 7 article but win 7 and vista have the exact same eula and the same technical limitations with it's installer that vista has, so... now using your, and a few other's, argument i could justify using a crack to bypass windows activation, since activation is a technical limitation and you, and a few others, seem to think that when it says "you may not bypass any technical limitations in the software" it really means "do whatever the f**k you want". as i said, do whatever you want, hell i've pirated software before, i ran a pirated copy of win 2k for years, i considered it payback for the screwing i received by buying Win Me and all the times that damned OS crashed and i lost what i was working on or all the times it crashed and f**ked up the fat32 filesystem and i lost all my data and didn't have any recourse to get my money back (and some compensation) from microsoft. i also feel for anyone that spent their hard earned cash on an "upgrade" license for win 7 or vista just to find out that a) there is on easy way to do a clean install with upgrade media and b) student get to buy the full version for $30 at certain colleges when you spent $200, so do what ever you want, but just don't lie to us or yourself that what you are doing is any better than someone that is flat out pirating the OS is doing.

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 30 09:21

Ethlred : Do you know if the Window 7 installer can recognize a VM as a qualifying installation? If so then it would be a good way to go for many geeks. Unfortunately it won't do for most people as they have enough difficulty just installing ANY software. assuming the win 7 eula is the same as vista's eula (and for all practical purposes it is, just the word vista is replaced with win 7), it would be illegal to do that with certain win 7 versions: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/29/microsoft_vista_eula_analysis/page2.html : Things will be different with Vista. Buried deep in the back of the EULA, in the sections titled "MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME BASIC" and "MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA HOME PREMIUM," are two identical clauses: 4. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system. and with ultimate you have the following restrictions: : It gets better, however. If you comply with Microsoft's licensing and use Ultimate within a virtualized environment, you still have to comply with section 6 of the "MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE" appendix to the Vista EULA: 6. USE WITH VIRTUALIZATION TECHNOLOGIES. You may use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system on the licensed device. If you do so, you may not play or access content or use applications protected by any Microsoft digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other Microsoft rights management services or use BitLocker. We advise against playing or accessing content or using applications protected by other digital, information or enterprise rights management technology or other rights management services or using full volume disk drive encryption. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_licensing.asp : Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.) Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint. are you capable of understanding this or an i just "inventing laws that don't exist" again?

jagabo posted 2009 Oct 30 09:49

Microsoft knows that DRM is dead when you use a VM. All VM's can be made to look like the same computer.

Jim44 posted 2009 Oct 30 14:03

deadrats : as a side note, i'm not sure it's technically possible to upgrade from a 32 bit OS to a 64 bit OS regardless of the OS in question, you are correct that it's not possible to upgrade to 64 bit win 7 from a 32 bit OS but i'm also fairly certain that its not possible to do that with any OS, not linux, not unix, not solaris, and not OS X. It absolutely is possible: http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/upgrade_02.asp And, to hopefully put an end to this, please read the last two paragraphs very carefully -> while this doesn't meet *my* (overly?) strict definition of a "clean" install (having the "windows.old" folder left over), this is the route I will be taking with one of my upgrades (the others will be similar, just 32-bit to 32-bit). Having the "windows.old" for a "just in case" situation does seem pragmatic. Note I'm bowing to pragmatism only - I still think you are wrong in your admonishments about "illegal" and "piracy" regarding the absolute-clean install with upgrade media I referred to earlier.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 30 17:20

lordsmurf : Dual booting is so 1990s. KVM two systems or virtualize. That's why I currently pentaboot (one more and I'll be able to wear my sexy boots) and have about four VMs. I also Remote Desktop since running more than 100' of VGA and USB cable is a bit inconvenient. In fact I'm doing so right now.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 30 17:30

deadrats : : Any version of Windows Vista can host virtual machines (VMs), whether in Microsoft's Virtual PC solution or a rival product like VMWare Workstation. However, only two retail version of Windows Vista are licensed for use as a guest OS in a VM: Windows Vista Business and Ultimate. (A third--non-retail--Vista version, Vista Enterprise, has different licensing terms, which I'll address in a bit.) Let that one sink in for a second. You cannot install Windows Vista Home Basic or Home Premium in a virtual machine, at least from a legal standpoint. are you capable of understanding this or an i just "inventing laws that don't exist" again? Nice use of Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V. Thurrott goes on to say: : So why "restrict" users like that? Well, as it turns out, there's no massive conspiracy. Currently, the majority of Microsoft's virtualization users fall into exactly two groups: business customers and enthusiasts. Business customers will want Vista Business and enthusiasts will use Vista Ultimate. Simple. And though pundits might like to complain about this apparently arbitrary decision, the reality is that very, very few people can ever come up with a legitimate reason to run, say, Vista Home Basic in a VM. And those that want to, can, if they don't mind violating the Vista EULA and not receiving support. Selectivity at its best. Good job. Better look up the chronic effects of warfarin exposure.

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 31 02:42

deadrats : what the f are you talking about? Legality. Which you don't understand. At all. A license is in no way a law. If you break a law you can be imprisoned or fined by a government. If you break a license the Licensor must sue the Licensee. In this case the Licensor is Microsoft and they have yet to enforce YOUR interpretation of the license. They haven't even told Paul to remove it from his site. : taken right from his website, on the page where he talks about doing a clean install using Vista upgrade media: Yes, right from Paul's site, and it has been there since Vista was released. Microsoft has NEVER even hinted that he should take it down. Nor SUED, much less prosecuted, him for actually doing it, as he clearly states he tested it. It isn't a law so it isn't illegal. And MS hasn't enforced it even if they think your interpretation is the correct one. : Proceed at your own risk. Yes, as I said that was over two and half years ago. Its still there. There is no risk nor a law. : now using your, and a few other's, argument i could justify using a crack to bypass windows activation, Learn how to read. I never said anything resembling that. I said that if you OWN the qualifying product AS STATED ON THE BOX, you have the right to purchase the upgrade product. If you have the right of purchase then it is STRONGLY implied that you have right to use it. : are you capable of understanding this or an i just "inventing laws that don't exist" again? Yes, to both. Learn what a law is vs. a license. Again the cops enforce laws. Companies TRY to enforce licenses. Sometimes. Ethelred

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 31 13:50

Ethlred : deadrats : what the f are you talking about? Legality. Which you don't understand. At all. A license is in no way a law. If you break a law you can be imprisoned or fined by a government. If you break a license the Licensor must sue the Licensee. In this case the Licensor is Microsoft and they have yet to enforce YOUR interpretation of the license. They haven't even told Paul to remove it from his site. : taken right from his website, on the page where he talks about doing a clean install using Vista upgrade media: Yes, right from Paul's site, and it has been there since Vista was released. Microsoft has NEVER even hinted that he should take it down. Nor SUED, much less prosecuted, him for actually doing it, as he clearly states he tested it. It isn't a law so it isn't illegal. And MS hasn't enforced it even if they think your interpretation is the correct one. : Proceed at your own risk. Yes, as I said that was over two and half years ago. Its still there. There is no risk nor a law. : now using your, and a few other's, argument i could justify using a crack to bypass windows activation, Learn how to read. I never said anything resembling that. I said that if you OWN the qualifying product AS STATED ON THE BOX, you have the right to purchase the upgrade product. If you have the right of purchase then it is STRONGLY implied that you have right to use it. : are you capable of understanding this or an i just "inventing laws that don't exist" again? Yes, to both. Learn what a law is vs. a license. Again the cops enforce laws. Companies TRY to enforce licenses. Sometimes. Ethelred you're not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? software licenses are the law, it's the software license that determines what you are legally permitted to do. when the FBI, or any other law enforcement agency, shuts down a software piracy operation, what crime are the defendants accused of committing? there is no law on the books that says you can't pirate microsoft's or apple's software, there's no law on the books that says you can't use a crack, just as there is no law that says you can legally make as many copies of linux or freebsd as you like, its the respective software licenses they are distributed under that dictates how you are legally allowed to use the software. with regards to breaking a law, the possible consequences are determined by the nature of the crime you commit, the prosecutor has the sole discretion to bring a criminal action, and for certain offenses the penalty can be both a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding brought by the state or the federal government. for certain criminal offense the only potential penalty is a civil proceeding brought by the attorney general office of the respective state or federal government. furthermore certain agency rules have the weight of law, for example OSHA rules or board of health regulations, are not codified in law per se, however there is language that says their rules must be obeyed and that said agencies have the right to enforce their rules. in a similar vein, the labels on chemicals are the law, there is no law per se, codified in EPA regulations, that says i can't apply carbaryl on a mattresses, for the treatment of bed bugs, in the state of ny, the label (which can be thought of as a chemical license that spells out permitted uses), explicitly places restriction on which locations can be applied and by what individuals, thus the label is the law. software licenses function the same way.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 31 15:31

Software licenses are essentially a contract between the Licensor and the Licensee. Any violation of the license by either party can be resolved either out of court or in a CIVIL court. Such courts do not deal with criminal (i.e., illegal) acts. They deal with breaches of contract. They cannot award punitive damages. Criminal action applies when the contract has clauses that are in themselves illegal such as "if you install the software on more than one computer then we will take your spouse hostage". If kidnapping is illegal in the jurisdiction specified by the contract then the contract is void. Where criminal action is alleged to have occurred between Licensor and Licensee then criminal charges can be brought against the victim of the alleged crime. Sadly, most individuals cannot afford to bring a civil suit against the other party due to the insane requirement that even if the plaintiff wins then have to pay court costs. Been there, done that. To summarize, you are wrong (though your commentary on OSHA and labeling is correct where the illegal use is codified. If I choose to inhale toluene vapors near a candle then I am at liberty to do so even if the label carries the appropriate warning signs but my Hazmat training prevents such stupidity on my part).

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 31 16:47

JohnnyMalaria : Software licenses are essentially a contract between the Licensor and the Licensee. Any violation of the license by either party can be resolved either out of court or in a CIVIL court. Such courts do not deal with criminal (i.e., illegal) acts. They deal with breaches of contract. They cannot award punitive damages. Criminal action applies when the contract has clauses that are in themselves illegal such as "if you install the software on more than one computer then we will take your spouse hostage". If kidnapping is illegal in the jurisdiction specified by the contract then the contract is void. Where criminal action is alleged to have occurred between Licensor and Licensee then criminal charges can be brought against the victim of the alleged crime. Sadly, most individuals cannot afford to bring a civil suit against the other party due to the insane requirement that even if the plaintiff wins then have to pay court costs. Been there, done that. you guys are about 12 years behind the times: : Prior to the enactment of the NET Act in 1997, copyright infringement for a non-commercial purpose was apparently not punishable by criminal prosecution, although non-commercial infringers could be sued in a civil action by the copyright holder to recover damages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement : Copyright infringement (or copyright violation) is the unauthorized use of material that is covered by copyright law, in a manner that violates one of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NET_Act : The United States No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act), a federal law passed in 1997, provides for criminal prosecution of individuals who engage in copyright infringement, even when there is no monetary profit or commercial benefit from the infringement. Maximum penalties can be five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. The NET Act also raised statutory damages by 50%. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act violating the software license is a criminal offense, its as simple as that.

JohnnyMalaria posted 2009 Oct 31 17:29

Oh dear, oh dear. When you quote Wikipedia you really should read the references. Go and read the NET Act and show me where is says that you can't install Windows 7 in the way described by Jim44. This is all I've been talking about - I have not been talking about piracy. But if I were then the NET Act would not permit criminal prosecution if I made a copy of the install disk and gave it to a friend. The Licensor would have to resort to civil action if it wanted to get a court judgement. To reiterate, I have only been talking about using an upgrade disk for a clean install. It is not illegal because it does not infringe copyright. Even if it did, you would not meet the minimum retail value required for prosecution. Next...

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 31 18:57

Give up Deadrats. All you have to do is admit that you are wrong and you stop looking like a stubborn troll. Then you look like a reasonable. Logical. WISE. If you just keep repeating nonsense you will continue to look like you just like argue. Badly. As opposed to me, as I like to argue, but I like to do it well. Unfortunately Videohelp discourages Flamewars. I suspect that torching you would be entertaining. Possibly for both of us but I doubt that you would actually like it. Must restrain self with both hands lest I Ethelred

deadrats posted 2009 Oct 31 19:14

Ethlred : Must restrain self with both hands lest I don't you usually "restrain" (i didn't realize that's what they're calling it these day) yourself with 2 fingers? :roll:

Ethlred posted 2009 Oct 31 20:59

Don't learn do you? License rights does not equate to copyright rights. It is not a copyright violation to install a program that you have legally purchased. Obviously one finger is enough to disable you. However two is traditional. Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk Fnjord Oh Meow as well. Ethelred

ocgw posted 2009 Nov 02 10:49

deadrats : Ethlred : Must restrain self with both hands lest I don't you usually "restrain" (i didn't realize that's what they're calling it these day) yourself with 2 fingers? :roll: LOLZ that was good LOLZ Knock, knock Whos's there? The POLICE!, we have a warrant to search your premises for evidence of "illegal" copywrite infringement ocgw peace

ocgw posted 2009 Nov 02 10:54

JohnnyMalaria : lordsmurf : Dual booting is so 1990s. KVM two systems or virtualize. That's why I currently pentaboot (one more and I'll be able to wear my sexy boots) and have about four VMs. I also Remote Desktop since running more than 100' of VGA and USB cable is a bit inconvenient. In fact I'm doing so right now. The beauty of "dual booting" is that you "hose" one OS you have an instant backup on the same PC ocgw peace

rallynavvie posted 2009 Nov 02 12:27

ocgw : The beauty of "dual booting" is that you "hose" one OS you have an instant backup on the same PC The same is true of using a KVM between two computers but with the added advantage of almost instantaneously switching to the other OS. Depending on your VM implementation you can get a similar backup, even with hosted VMs when the host is lost. Obviously the guests can be instantly rebuilt or reverted to a previous snapshot, something physical builds can't do so easily.

ocgw posted 2009 Nov 02 12:34

rallynavvie : ocgw : The beauty of "dual booting" is that you "hose" one OS you have an instant backup on the same PC The same is true of using a KVM between two computers but with the added advantage of almost instantaneously switching to the other OS. Depending on your VM implementation you can get a similar backup, even with hosted VMs when the host is lost. Obviously the guests can be instantly rebuilt or reverted to a previous snapshot, something physical builds can't do so easily. Dual booting + 2 PC's = 4 OS's KVM seems decidely "80's" to me, needing 2 PC's to run 2 OS's, really?, now that is "old school" Anyway we have had this conversation before, if a VM can't recognize my native hardware it is of no use to me, (I am doing a lil' more than running "office chit") ocgw peace

Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.