Windows 7 Upgrade Will Only Install Over Activated Copy of Windows XP or Vista?

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/windows_7_upgrade_edition_will_require_activated_copy_verification_each_time_it’s_installed' target='_blank'>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/ne...t’s_installed</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"A few days ago we released our Windows 7 upgrade guide with the hopes of answering all your burning questions regarding the inexpensive upgrade editions that so many of us have pre-ordered. One of the questions that we couldn't answer at the time however, was how Windows 7 would handle the verification process to ensure that you were eligible to update. In Windows XP upgrade editions, you simply needed to insert an older install disk. Vista upped the ante considerably by requiring you to have a previous version installed (no activation required). Windows 7 on the other hand, will now require an activated previous version to be installed and not even the workaround found in the Vista version will be permitted."</em></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com//dht/auto/1247608737.usr1.png" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>There's a lot of confusion flying around about this - the concern is, of course, the activation process. The above paragraph pretty much says it all - Microsoft is taking a hard-line approach with this process it seems. They must really want to drive the purchase of full-price Windows 7 - but I suspect this will have the effect of keeping some people on Windows Vista if they don't have all the licenses they need. It seems as though getting a key for Windows 7 RC is the smart move so you can install the RC, then upgrade to Windows 7 final from that. <a href="http://hothardware.com/News/Rules-for-Windows-7-Upgrades-Verified/" target="_blank">This article has an interesting comment</a> posted by a user who says that once you install and activate Vista or XP on a computer, it will remember that activation so if you need to re-install Windows 7 again, you won't need to install the older operating system. Frankly, this all seems like a bit of a headache. Was the old method really so bad Microsoft?</p>

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Anything to do for more money, I guess.

[mar2k]

Really Microsoft? Just awful if true. Under that scenario if my Win7 OS hard drive fails and the first thing I have to do to recover is grab my disc and reinstall XP and activate it...nice.

Sounds like the punchline for an Apple commercial if you ask me.

[ptyork]

I really think that this isn't what it is made out to be. I think your linked article comment has it right. XP/Vista must be installed and activated for the initial upgrade (this makes sense, after all), but this is primarily to deactivate the prior license (again, makes sense) and basically transform the upgrade key into a standard key (as far as the activation servers are concerned). After this, the new key would allow re-installation just as would a standard product key. Any other scenario makes little sense, and MS rarely does things that fundamentally make little sense (truly--I believe that--and I'm steeled for all of the mockery that is bound to follow...).

Incidentally I just got my invite into the Office 2010 preview. Wow! Just as Win7 is what Vista should have been, 2010 is what 2007 should have been. Very well integrated and well thought out, even in preview form. Now if I could just get access to those web-based versions I'd be in geek heaven.

[EscapePod]

The number one task I intend to perform after a stable installation of Win 7 (RTM), is to make an image of the OS drive.

And I fully agree with the comment above -- MS is handing Apple's advertising agency the words for their next anti-MS ads.

[Damion Chaplin]

What's really annoying about this is that in the past when I bought a new copy of Windows (even an upgrade), I could, once I upgrade, then use the old copy of Windows on a different machine. This new rather draconian upgrade policy will now require that I keep my copy of Vista for the machine I've upgraded to Win7, instead of passing it along like I've always done in the past. :mad:

So, Jason, as far as you know, this is entirely correct? Commenters in that thread are complaining that there's no confirmation from anyone else yet...

[ptyork]

What's really annoying about this is that in the past when I bought a new copy of Windows (even an upgrade), I could, once I upgrade, then use the old copy of Windows on a different machine.

Yep, MS is trying to crack down on this. It was never legal to do it. From Vista’s EULA:

-------
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.
-------

Now they are just enforcing it (at least if these rumors are true). Annoying maybe, but I'm not sure "draconian" would be the proper term to use here since obviously their licensing terms were not being adhered to in the first place.

[Damion Chaplin]

Now they are just enforcing it (at least if these rumors are true). Annoying maybe, but I'm not sure "draconian" would be the proper term to use here since obviously their licensing terms were not being adhered to in the first place.

Yeah, and they knew it the whole time. Anyone here EVER pay for the full retail version (not OEM) of Windows? Ever? Even my copy of Windows 3.1 is an upgrade. I don't mind keepng the old disc on hand to verify upgrade eligibility, but requiring that I install and activate said old disc is a ridiculous time-waster. Microsoft would be smart to not alienate the PC enthusiast market. You think my Mom and all my friends are going to upgrade themselves? No, they're gonna ask me. And I'm likely to give MS just about as much loyalty, respect and trust as they've given me.

[Jason Dunn]

So, Jason, as far as you know, this is entirely correct? Commenters in that thread are complaining that there's no confirmation from anyone else yet...

My main Windows team contact hasn't posted a reply yet - so I'm not sure.

[Jason Dunn]

Yeah, and they knew it the whole time. Anyone here EVER pay for the full retail version (not OEM) of Windows? Ever? Even my copy of Windows 3.1 is an upgrade.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm all for obeying licensing rules, but it's always been a given that when you bought a copy of Windows you'd buy an upgrade, because you were ALWAYS a previous owner of Windows...this new system is more of a shock to the system because it's so different from how it's always been. Let's face it, a Windows OS upgrade price is pretty expensive at normal prices ($149 USD or so). The full version pricing is INSANE in my opinion - when you have perfectly capable desktop computers selling for $400, Microsoft expects users to pay more than 50% of the computer price just for the OS? Yikes - that's just too much.

[ptyork]

Let's face it, a Windows OS upgrade price is pretty expensive at normal prices ($149 USD or so). The full version pricing is INSANE in my opinion - when you have perfectly capable desktop computers selling for $400, Microsoft expects users to pay more than 50% of the computer price just for the OS? Yikes - that's just too much.

"When did the value of an operating system, the core of every computing experience, become so de-valued in the minds of users? Sure, Linux is free, but you get what you pay for. The OS is at the heart of everything you do on a computer, yet people are balking at having to pay $49 (or less in the family pack) to get a whole new OS that Microsoft spend three years and millions (billions?) making." (Jason Dunn, 3 or 4 days ago) :)

FYI, it's well into the billions. Vista cost between $6 and $10 billion (depending on the source and how the estimates are calculated). MUCH more when you calculate overhead, support, distribution, and maintenance (including multiple free service packs). Sure, when MS expects to ship 177 million copies by year end, this number seems small (works out to around $56.60 per copy if you take the $10 billion figure), but that "MUCH more" figure is very big and they also have to line the coffers for huge ongoing R&D costs and to make up for loss leaders (like everything Live). Personally, I don't think the costs are all that extravagant.

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I'm all for obeying licensing rules, but it's always been a given that when you bought a copy of Windows you'd buy an upgrade, because you were ALWAYS a previous owner of Windows...this new system is more of a shock to the system because it's so different from how it's always been.

But you're still buying the upgrade if you're a prior owner. You just can't (illegally) reuse the old OS. Assuming the upgrade requires only that the activated copy be present when you FIRST upgrade and then the license basically becomes a full one (with the old OS license deactivated), do you still feel this way? Or is it just the possibility (that I think is very unlikely) that you'd need an activated prior version EACH time you do an install/reinstall?

Of course I thought it incredibly unlikely that Apple would openly, purposely, and gloatingly disable Pre->iTunes syncing, so what do I know. ;) 'Course, that was 99% pure ego and 1% (poor) business.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The fact about software development is that it's mostly sunk cost. From release onwards there's some shipping cost for retail versions, but I'll bet most of copies sold will be in bundled OEM versions.

I don't think Jason is contradicting himself. He's right that the OS shouldn't be free, and he's also right that the OS shouldn't cost too much in relation to the hardware. Like I said, it's a mostly sunk cost; any sale that MS doesn't make is a loss in a sizeable chunk of profit.

[Jason Dunn]

"When did the value of an operating system, the core of every computing experience, become so de-valued in the minds of users?...(Jason Dunn, 3 or 4 days ago) :)

I was talking about a cost of $49 USD - to me that's reasonable and quite affordable. Windows 7 upgrade is $119 USD now. That's not outrageous to me - it's what most people have paid for retail upgrades of Windows over the recent years. It does get expensive if you have multiple machines in your home, but the Family Pack pricing helps with that (if it turns out to be true). But with these new rules, an increasing number of people are going to have to pay $199 USD for the full version, and in a world of $399 desktop computers, that seems dangerously high to me - especially given the world economy.

Assuming the upgrade requires only that the activated copy be present when you FIRST upgrade and then the license basically becomes a full one (with the old OS license deactivated), do you still feel this way?

That might be OK...but I swap hardware around so much, the idea of harsher licensing restrictions makes me uncomfortable. I wanted things to get better, not worse.

Or is it just the possibility (that I think is very unlikely) that you'd need an activated prior version EACH time you do an install/reinstall?

Correct, that's the issue that frequent re-installers will potentially face and if so, it's a big pain in the ass. When you make things painful for people, many will turn to piracy - I feel like this move by Microsoft is going to INCREASE piracy, not lessen it.

[ptyork]

That might be OK...but I swap hardware around so much, the idea of harsher licensing restrictions makes me uncomfortable. I wanted things to get better, not worse.

Hardware swapping has always been painful, even with full versions. I'm not 100% sure what combination of hardware signatures Microsoft uses to determine whether you are installing on a new machine or reinstalling on an old machine, but I know that I've had to call MS many times in the past because of a reinstall on a new MOBO or even on a new HD. Assuming my interpretation is correct, this is no worse than before, though admittedly we don't know if it is any better.

When you make things painful for people, many will turn to piracy - I feel like this move by Microsoft is going to INCREASE piracy, not lessen it.

That I agree with 100%. It is what the publishing and video entertainment industry is facing right now. I think deep down a majority of people want to be legal, but when it is too inconvenient (or ridiculously expensive) to be so, then "oh well, I tried" and "what are the chances I'll be caught?" I know that is the case for me in some limited scenarios (mostly regarding back-episodes of TV shows that are no longer available on Hulu--come on, I'm perfectly willing to ignore commercials if you'll let me). IF Microsoft's upgrade scheme is as feared, then they are in fact likely to face greater piracy. However, I REALLY don't think they are that dumb. Plus there's that whole logic thing. How can you do a reinstall or transfer of an upgrade if you require an activated prior version of windows but the prior version's license has been deactivated. No, I think this is unnecessary FUD.

[mar2k]

Plus there's that whole logic thing. How can you do a reinstall or transfer of an upgrade if you require an activated prior version of windows but the prior version's license has been deactivated. No, I think this is unnecessary FUD.

Great point, if the prior license is "deactivated" when you upgrade to Windows 7, there would never be a way to reinstall if you bought the upgrade key or media.

The way it SHOULD work IMO:

The combination of the prior version license key found during the install and the valid key that ships with the upgrade package are used to generate a valid Windows 7 key that replaces both the old key and the upgrade key. This new validated key unlocks a FULL version of Windows 7 that can be installed on a bare drive going forward. All prior version keys are invalid.

[jaxim]

Hey Jason. If you have a contact in the Windows team, can you tell them how sucky the upgrade pricing is for Vista users? IMHO, Vista users should get a reduced price to upgrade to Win7 as compared to XP users. It's like upgrading to any other software. For example, if I upgrade to Adobe CS4, then my cost will be less if I have CS3 as compared to CS2.

I bought the Vista upgrade, upgraded my computer hardware and now if I want to upgrade to Win7, it'll cost me more than XP users (who skipped upgrading to Vista) if you factor in the upgrade cost of Vista. Where's the brand loyality?

Maybe I should just switch to a Mac. Let's hope Microsoft still offers a reduced price by October.

[alanjrobertson]

Wow, I never thought I'd see the day, but it looks like users in Europe have actually got a better deal for once! In the UK the promotional rate is £49 for Win 7 Home Premium E - that's a FULL rather than upgrade edition although it doesn't include Internet Explorer (has to be installed separately). So although its 1:1 $:£ conversion, this is for a full rather than upgrade edition so not that bad a deal.

I'd also 2nd Jaxim's request - could you perhaps emphasise to the Windows team, Jason, about how rubbish a deal those of us who bought Vista Ultimate ended up with after the promise of all these 'Ultimate Extras' that seemed to end up consisting of a moving wallpaper?! I think a big discount for these customers or a free upgrade copy of Windows 7 would be a much appreciated gesture given how little MS have done to keep up their end of the bargain.

A.

PS - just received my shipping confirmation from Staples.co.uk today - not quite sure how they've managed that given it's not due out for quite a few months yet!!

[Jason Dunn]

I'd also 2nd Jaxim's request - could you perhaps emphasise to the Windows team, Jason, about how rubbish a deal those of us who bought Vista Ultimate ended up with after the promise of all these 'Ultimate Extras' that seemed to end up consisting of a moving wallpaper?!

I agree that Microsoft should do something for Windows Ultimate buyers, but I disagree very strongly with the rest of Jaxim's complaints - so much so that I didn't trust myself to write anything because I'd probably come across as a bit angry. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

I don't know what you guys expect beyond a $50 copy of Windows. :confused:

[alanjrobertson]

I don't know what you guys expect beyond a $50 copy of Windows. :confused: Well I'd still like a £33 upgrade version to match your pricing (TFIC!) but what I'm meaning is that they should provide some extra offer just to Vista Ultimate owners.

This current promotion is for any and all that want it (& are quick enough to get it!) and I'd like to see something targetted at Ultimate owners - some sort of final Extra. Most (?all) retailers in the UK now seemed to have run out of the £49.99 promo and Home Premium has now gone up to £74.97 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=windows+7&x=0&y=0) so this was a pretty short-lived offer.