A Bit of Backpedaling and an Apology from Microsoft

In a very long-winded post, Microsoft's Eric Ligman (he of the "you are probably a pirate" post) does some furious backpedalling from his previous position on doing clean installs with Windows 7 Upgrade media. That is, where he previously came off very strong about how people doing this could be pirates ("technically possible" does not always mean legal), he's apparently woken up to the fact that many of Microsoft's customers agree with me. ("technically possible" does not always mean illegal. In fact, in this case, it almost always means legal.) The issue here isn't just semantic. This is very much about how Microsoft communicates with his customers, and while Ligman tries to make the case that Microsoft cares very much about it's customers, this little episode is telling them otherwise. Sorry, Eric. There's a lot of ill will for you to get over now.

Anyway. To the relevant portions of his latest post.

"Conspiracy-theorism" (yes, I know theorism is not in the dictionary) is very present.

i.e. it's your fault, those Microsoft customers who misunderstood his first post, which was in fact innocent and not an attempt to scare anyone.

There appears to be a lot of reading through "pre-determined conclusion" lenses

Sorry, you're 0 for 2. I read through "customer" lenses. I look at what Microsoft did, and what you wrote, and, in this case, deemed it to be anti-customer, because Microsoft is punishing the many (almost 1 billion legit Windows users who qualify for Windows 7 Upgrade pricing) for the sins of the few (actual software pirates). This is, of course, the primary complaint about all anti-piracy controls, when you think about it.

Anyway.

Where in there did I state that the solutions proposed by either of these gentlemen cannot be used, are illegal to use, and/or should not be used? I flat out stated that if you own the right licenses, you can do the clean install, without calling out any procedure that can/cannot be used. Where did I state that either of them is not trying to help customers in their posted solutions?

If only you had said it like that. If only you had said, hey, in most cases, this is perfectly legal, but I would like to remind a tiny minority of our customers that the Upgrade versions of Windows 7--which we as a company pre-sold to you at bargain pricing without any warnings whatsoever--might not actually work and/or possibly (but not usually) violate our licensing rules, you know maybe you'd have a point. But you didn't. You said, "technically possible" does not always mean legal. That's a very strong statement, and you keep repeating it in this new post. It's a warning. It has intent.

Welcome to my life, Eric. I do this all the time. I can commiserate. Really, I can. But when you screw up--and you did--I've found it's best to just apologize. Sure, explain why you did what you did, but just leave it with the apology.

Also, I don't appreciate the way he mischaracterizes what I wrote by only referencing a quickie, heat-of-the-moment, throw-away blog post and not the full-fledged Upgrade with Clean Media article(s) I've written, where I've always clearly stated the rules. I don't like that. The losing side of an argument always takes things out of context. And changes the subject. (Witness the lengthy exploration of the word "hack".)

But he does apologize. Eventually.

It's too bad I never heard from him directly, as the volume of my email suggests others have figured out how to do so pretty easily. And it's too bad that I and others had to wade through a bunch of self-serving text to get to this apology I'd never have known about if a friend hadn't forwarded the link. But this isn't about me. The real shame here is that Microsoft is still not effectively communicating how this process works, explaining why it sometimes doesn't work, or apologizing to the many, many people it fooled into buying Upgrade versions with very special pricing--especially XP users--expecting it just to work. Based on my email, it's not working for a great many people. And that's why I do what I do, to help people. Not to help people pirate. Just to help people.

Again, I sort of assumed this was obvious.

Apology accepted. I'm sure you're a good guy and this was all well-intentioned.

Discuss this Article 40

spivonious
on Nov 2, 2009
But didn't MS recently have a slide at one of their events that showed their prime competitor was not Mac or Linux, but pirated copies of Windows? While the decision MS made concerning previous copy validation is a bit draconian (simply typing a valid key from a previous version should be enough), there is a real problem with pirating MS software.
Waethorn
on Nov 2, 2009
Just in case someone mentions this in this post, to which I didn't get a chance to respond to in the previous one: "Who exactly wants / needs / buys the "Full" retail version ever?" Answer: Anyone that has bought a used, refurbished or barebones computer that didn't have a legitimate license included with it (many refurbishers only include the original COA, which is not legal - luckily you can get recovery discs from http://www.restoredisks.com ), or DIY'ers that are building their own system from off-the-shelf parts.
Trimble Epic
on Nov 2, 2009
Paul, Your writing is always such a pleasure to read. You're clear, and open, like having a conversation with you in my living room, both of us relaxing on leather furniture, enjoying drinks together. How anyone can misconstrue anything you write as pro-piracy is so beyond me that it's bewildering.
Trimble Epic
on Nov 2, 2009
"DIY'ers that are building their own system from off-the-shelf parts." DIY'ers should be trying to get OEM windows instead of the full version, if the motherboard is coming straight from Newegg(or wherever) If the motherboard is coming off the DIYer's spart parts shelf, one could argue that at some point, when that motherboard WAS in use, it WAS running a copy of Windows before. IF a DIY'er starts with one mobo and a legit copy of Windows, then buys a new mobo and parts to build a whole new machine, and re-uses the previous copy of Windows, then shelves the mobo that used to be running it... then, brings that older mobo off teh shelf to build a SECOND computer, then yes - they should aquire an additional legit copy of windows. OEM again. doh.
anonymous
on Nov 2, 2009
There's been a bit of a saga going on with Paul Thurrott and Microsoft over Windows 7. The short story...
anonymous
on Nov 2, 2009
This post was mentioned on Twitter by thurrott: A Bit of Backpedaling and an Apology from Microsoft: In a very long-winded post, Microsoft's Eric Ligman (h.. http://bit.ly/3imiJ9
Backup77
on Nov 2, 2009
Good post Paul Microsoft should have just admitted they got this wrong and now comes the backflip. Its a pity because its taken some shine off the Windows 7 launch. Hopefully better communications with their customers in the future will ensue.
lketchum
on Nov 2, 2009
oh brother.... oh the outrage now followed up by this holy cow. It wasn't all that dang big a deal to begin with and in toooooooooo many cases, the rules were being bent and broken. Sorry man... that's it... I won't be back. Tis too much to stomach. I mean really... what about: "technically possible" does not always mean legal" is either inaccurate or offensive? Anything at all? Not to me. Not at all. The man called it like it is. Back to where adults live and work for me it will be.
Waethorn
on Nov 2, 2009
"DIY'ers should be trying to get OEM windows instead of the full version, if the motherboard is coming straight from Newegg(or wherever)" Sorry, but that's not legal. OEM copies are for resale, preinstalled on new, complete computers by system builders only. "IF a DIY'er starts with one mobo and a legit copy of Windows, then buys a new mobo and parts to build a whole new machine, and re-uses the previous copy of Windows...." ....And I'm going to stop you right there. See, that's where you lost the argument. OEM copies aren't transferable from system to system, and Microsoft considers the motherboard to be "the heart of the system" (that's exactly how they word it on the System Builder website). They state that DIY'ers are to buy full retail versions, which allows them to upgrade their motherboard, which Microsoft counts as a new PC. Retail copies are transferable, whereas OEM copies are not. Technically, they would start with a motherboard, an OEM copy, and if they buy a new motherboard, would have to have a new OEM copy for that new motherboard. They can't flip them back and forth. Of course, OEM copies aren't meant for those customers. If you're building your system for resale purposes, then you have certain rights to buy system builder software. Otherwise, nobody is allowed to buy system builder software for their own use, unless it's directly related to preinstalling the operating system for use by someone else (beyond their control) after selling the computer. That's the legal terms of the SBLA, translated into as short and simplistic an English as anyone can write. Microsoft charges less for system builder software because they make money on post-purchase sales around the Windows ecosystem. If you were a major OEM, buying directly from Microsoft, you can get software for about half the price of what system builder versions sell for. For all intents and purposes, we'll just say that: Direct OEM software is about half the price of System Builder software. System Builder software is about half the price of retail full version software, and about equal in cost to a retail upgrade. Volume licenses are roughly about the same price as System Builder or retail upgrades, but have extra support services included with them and must be purchased, as the name implies, in volume. Basic volume license agreements start with as few as 5 licenses. Software Assurance costs an additional ~40-60% of the license fee in Open License programs, but it can be purchased for OEM licensing without Microsoft requiring that you re-purchase licenses through the volume license agreement. Many of my business customers that buy new PC with OEM/SB licensing purchase SA as an add-on. SA can usually be renewed, depending on the agreement, but some programs only allow a 1-time renewal. After that renewal, the SA ends unless they purchase new licenses (or new PC's with new OEM licenses). That usually isn't an issue though, as SA has a standard 3-year term, and most businesses will want to reacquire new PC's after a single renewal, meaning after 6-years. Any licensing acquired though a volume licensing agreement for Windows Client OS's are UPGRADES ONLY. Retail full versions are the most expensive way to buy operating system software. Retail and OEM is the only way you can purchase a full Windows Client OS. Microsoft wants you to just buy a new computer with the OS preloaded, as does Paul, as do most people that give upgrade advice (myself included).
Lindy
on Nov 2, 2009
Is this excerpts from the next Nancy Drew novel? Skip to the part where Mike G is exposed!!
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 2, 2009
As the registry burns these are the days of our lives.......
scotters783
on Nov 2, 2009
Paul, I tried to read Eric's latest comments that you posted a link to. I could barely get through it. Like you said, I'm sure he's a good guy - but my goodness. Microsoft shouldn't allow someone like him to be the voice of the company in this situation. To read his post hurts.. and I'm embarrased for him. Thanks Paul, for years of clear, well written news.
whiplash55
on Nov 2, 2009
Just tried to upgrade Vista Home Premium to Win 7 Pro. Won't let me do it???? Thought I could do this but I have to do a clean install and reinstall all my data and programs. Normally I'd be fine wit this but on this machine I need to make sure I don't lose much time because of tax work I need to do. So I have to use home premium to do a in place upgrade. Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor says I can use Home Premium or Ultimate. Professional isn't mentioned. I have to say I don't get it.
fred001
on Nov 2, 2009
@Waethorn: The legality of the use of OEM versions of Widnows by end-users who build their own PCs is not all that clear, as Ed Bott points out in his '08 article: http://bit.ly/3DDnAX In different documents, Microsoft has contradictory language regarding the OEM licensing for those who build their own PCs.
chuckb84
on Nov 2, 2009
"apologizing to the many, many people it fooled into buying Upgrade versions with very special pricing--especially XP users--expecting it just to work. Based on my email, it's not working for a great many people." "Trust me. This time it's gonna be different." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XJTCiHRENU
subzerohitman721
on Nov 2, 2009
Paul, This blog was just as enjoyable to read as your Where Vista fails article for your Windows Vista review. Just honest and very pointed criticism of Microsoft when this really should have been a no brainer. Microsoft needs to re-orient the discussion internally at Microsoft to "As not what the OS does for us, ask what the OS can do for our customers." I might ammend that further by saying by saying "How can we make the installation process as easy and painless as possible?" These are all fine points that need to be heavily brought up during the milestone, prebeta, beta, and RC testing builds of Windows 8. The cleanest, easiest, and most efficient ways of installation, migration, and upgrade paths should be tested and tested. It just seems with Microsoft that this part is always done to protect Microsoft and not looking out for customers. I think a balanced approach to satisfy mutual interests is definitely needed. Infact, you might have an article here about where Windows 7 falls short. Keep up the protesting Paul. You've been a good voice as to pointing out the redonkulousness of the Windows 7 upgrade process. I really do hope you write a formal article about the failure of this process. Perhaps that will grab more of Redmond's attention.
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 2, 2009
"Trust me. This time it's gonna be different." Should have been the title of the blog post.....
RobertC
on Nov 2, 2009
Sorry Paul, I don't agree that Eric Ligman was out of place in what he said. You've simply blown his original article out of all reasonable proportions as an excuse to go on a tirade. Having read both Ligman pieces, there is nothing in them that accuses you of promoting piracy. In fact, the blogs were about clarifying the licensing issues surrounding the install "hacks". Nothing that he wrote accused customers of being pirates - it was a simple state-the-facts treatise on how upgrade licences work. Furthermore, his comment about "technically possible is not necessarily legal" IS CORRECT. I don't know how the hell this got sensationalised into accusing customers of being pirates. If you don't have a qualifying version of Windows, you are not eligible for a Windows 7 upgrade licence, even though there are technical ways of evading that restriction. THAT WAS THE POINT. You missed the point entirely Paul and decided to launch a torrent of abuse at Eric, all because he ACCURATELY explained the legalities. I think you owe Eric an apology.
chuckb84
on Nov 3, 2009
And the hits just keep on coming. From this, "Windows 7 Upgrade Scenarios Scenario 4: Upgrade from the Windows 7 RC to the Final Version" We get gems like this, "Instead, you must copy of the contents of the DVD to the PC containing Windows 7 RC (in a location like C:\install) and then edit the \sources\cversion.ini file in a text editor like Notepad. (Right-click it and choose Edit.) Change the MinClient build number to a value of 7100 or lower. Then, save the file and exit Notepad. Re-run Setup, this time from C:\install." This is straight out of DOS-land, circa 1983. Just INCREDIBLE that Microsoft puts people through this.....and they put up with it. Cringely has been a bit over the top lately, but this piece was correct http://www.cringely.com/2009/10/why-windows-7-costs-so-much/ Windows 7 is expensive and the upgrade process so absurd because Microsoft doesn't want you to do it. I find WIndows 7 "okay", certainly better than any other version of Windows, and it runs okay under VMWare, but Microsoft certainly doesn't make it easy to get there.
Waethorn
on Nov 3, 2009
"The legality of the use of OEM versions of Widnows by end-users who build their own PCs is not all that clear, as Ed Bott points out in his '08 article" a) Ed Bott doesn't have access to the OEM System Builder website, in which they are very clear about who should have access to OEM System Builder software. He's not a System Builder, so although I credit him for trying to explain it to the general public, he just doesn't have the resources that System Builders have to get the straight facts. b) That article was written in 2008, and many people refer to the old System Builder License Agreement that dates back to before XP SP3 and Vista circa 2005, where it states that OEM software can be purchased with only a non-peripheral piece of hardware. It has since been changed in that, and many other ways. c) There is only one document that has the license agreement for System Builder software, and that's the System Builder License Agreement (SBLA) which is attached to each System Builder kit. By opening the kit, you agree to those terms. d) As I explained already, the rights that System Builders have is to preinstall the operating (using the supplied OEM Preinstallation Kit) prior to selling the computer to a party that is beyond their control. That's it. That's the usage license summed up in a nutshell, and it's not that complicated to grasp. System Builders aren't allowed to use the software that they preinstall, beyond the task of preinstalling it and getting it ready for the customer to whom they are selling the computer.
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 3, 2009
"Upgrade from the Windows 7 RC to the Final Version" They were VERY clear from the beginning that this would NOT be a supported upgrade path, that you MUST do a clean install. There is no backpedaling there. That is just some people that want to get around the restriction. I had the RC running, and did the clean install method and it worked perfectly. There is no doubt that the process could be easier and/or more documentation from MS provided, but to blame MS for something that they said they wouldn't support in the past is just unnecessary FUD.
Waethorn
on Nov 3, 2009
"I find WIndows 7 "okay", certainly better than any other version of Windows, and it runs okay under VMWare, but Microsoft certainly doesn't make it easy to get there." Just take a page out of the Apple playbook, and buy a new computer if you find this complicated.
alwayssmilingguy
on Nov 3, 2009
From your commentary, you stated " ("technically possible" does not always mean illegal. In fact, in this case, it almost always means legal.) The issue here isn't just semantic." Actually Mr. Ligman is correct in his blog. While your intention was to help people who are having issues with upgrading out, it can be, and most likely is being, used to illegally install Windows. I think everyone here will agree that this scenario is illegal: I have a copy of Windows Vista on Computer 1. I'm building Computer 2. I purchase the upgrade version, and use your method to install it on Computer. 2. You can drop the first portion if you want (and not have a computer with Windows installed on it at all). Either way, it makes the use of the Upgrade software illegal. As for the arguments about "But, what if I have to do a reinstallation later on, and I don't have my CD anymore???? What can I do??" That answer is simple. You install as normal, and you call Microsoft to activate the computer. Tell them that you had to reinstall, and that you are activating it. If it's a computer that you purchased, and they want the original key, it's either on the side or back. If you built it yourself, then truthfully you should have kept that old CD or at least the key somewhere (like on the side or back of the computer). Have a great day:) Patrick.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 3, 2009
@WaeWrong spews: "Microsoft wants you to just buy a new computer with the OS preloaded, as does Paul, as do most people that give upgrade advice (myself included)." Then he burps up this nugget: "Just take a page out of the Apple playbook, and buy a new computer if you find this complicated." Huh? I thought you just said that buying "a new computer with the OS preloaded" was out of the Microsoft/Paul Thurrott/WaeWrong playbook. Get your story straight. (BTW, congratulations on being the first to specifically mention Apple in a non-Apple post)
Waethorn
on Nov 3, 2009
"While your intention was to help people who are having issues with upgrading out, it can be, and most likely is being, used to illegally install Windows." You can say the same about P2P networks. Honestly, outside of downloading Linux distributions, are there really any legal uses for Bittorrent or Limewire? I don't honestly know anybody that uses either for legal reasons.
Waethorn
on Nov 3, 2009
@lostayostuff: I'm talking in a language that chuckie understands. Get a life. Really.
levesda
on Nov 3, 2009
Hey Paul, Eric Ligman says that he tried to contact you via e-mail or direct message several times over the weekend to apologize to you in person. He's done it with Ed Bott, but maybe his e-mails are getting lost in your mountain of e-mails. Check out the comments he posted on his own blog: {quote} @ Bill - Thanks for Paul's email; however: - Contrary to Paul's blog statement, "It's too bad I never heard from him directly," I actually did DM him on Sunday with an apology. It was the same DM content that I sent to Ed Bott as well. Ed responded and we have had numerous conversations since. Paul never responded. - Contrary to Paul's blog statement of, "I'd never have known about if a friend hadn't forwarded the link," just after my post went live on Monday, I sent a DM to Paul with the link to the post, telling him I was posting a public apology so that he was aware of it and knew it was sincere. It was the same DM message I also sent to Ed Bott just afterwards. Ed responsed with a, "Thank you," and posted a follow-up to Twitter about it. Paul never responded. - I sent a follow-up email to Paul yesterday asking about both of the items above. Paul never responded. - Now before you ask if I sent the DMs to the right place, the answer is yes, and I know this because Paul did respond to a separate DM about his schedule (with no response to any of the above). So I have reached out to Paul and Ed several times starting over the weekend about this (contrary to the statements in Paul's blog post). Ed has responded and we have had several communications. Paul has not responded. Maybe if you happen to talk with Paul, you could have him take a look at the DMs and email I sent him, since I have had no reply to any of them. Thank you for the feedback. {unquote}
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 3, 2009
lotsa "congratulations on being the first to specifically mention Apple in a non-Apple post" Wow did you get that one wrong. The very first (non-pingback) comment in this post mentioned Apple's Macintosh almost 5 hours earlier. The very first comment. "[Microsoft's] prime competitor was not Mac or Linux, but pirated copies of Windows"
jillbazeley
on Nov 3, 2009
I wasn't too insulted or worried since Ligman originally said, "...since you have the previous version FULL Windows license and qualify for the Windows 7 Upgrade, you have the rights to do a “clean” install" but I was highly irritated that I still had to use the registry hack to activate (on a separate partition.)
EricoF3
on Nov 3, 2009
@Paul: RobertC is right on this one...
EricoF3
on Nov 3, 2009
mikegalos@msn.com said: "[Microsoft's] prime competitor was not Mac or Linux, but pirated copies of Windows" I have a question about that... Whe nwe talk that Microsoft own 95% of the OS market and OSX is 3.8% and Linux the rest... Is the pirate Windows are calculated in the 95% Microsoft own or not?
chuckb84
on Nov 3, 2009
Waethorn, lotsa is right; you've argued both sides of this question (upgrade vs. buy a new computer). When apple requires it, it's a "tax", when it is what you recommend for Win7, it's what? I can't even figure out your contradictory posts. And don't make things personal by attacking the messenger. If you have some issue with the MESSAGE, you might focus on that. Editing .ini files, doing registry hacks for a freaking OS upgrade? Come on, you KNOW how you'd react to this if it was from Apple. ONLY Microsoft would put people through this. This upgrade stuff, which now has 5 articles/scenarios just on this one blog, plus a blogosphere fight between Ed/Paul/et al and Microsoft, the whole thing borders on surreal. If Microsoft tried to make it complicated, annoying and decided to irritate customers, they couldn't have done it better than this.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 3, 2009
mikeygalos: I said "Apple". Nice try.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 3, 2009
EricoF3 "When we talk that Microsoft own 95% of the OS market and OSX is 3.8% and Linux the rest... Is the pirate Windows are calculated in the 95% Microsoft own or not?" Those are usually presented as installed base numbers so that is computers using the operating system no matter how the copy was acquired. The installed base number is generally more important in the long run than sales figures since companies building the rest of the ecosystem (applications, peripherals, etc) want to know how large a customer base they have available for their product and people who stole their copy of Windows are still likely to buy their product (or steal it). The installed base number is also useful since copies sold is a very different number for each of the three platforms since their distribution models are so different. The installed base number tend to be very much the same as the sales numbers for Apple since they only sell their OS bundled with their hardware and the number of people using OS X illegally on "Hackintosh" hardware is trivial. In the other direction, the installed base number for Linux (and BSD and other non-commercial *nix) is about the only real number available since, aside from the small percentage who buy commercially supported distributions, the correlation of measurable copies downloaded and copies actually running is tenuous as people download multiple distributions but keep using, at best, one for actual use or, on the other hand download one copy but install on multiple machines.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 3, 2009
lotsa So you're saying you were being a pedant and not actually trying to make any useful point? Good to know for future postings of yours.
Waethorn
on Nov 3, 2009
"When apple requires it, it's a "tax", when it is what you recommend for Win7, it's what? I can't even figure out your contradictory posts." It's a tax because Apple charges too much for their logo. "Come on, you KNOW how you'd react to this if it was from Apple." Apple routinely treats their customers badly, so nothing from them surprises me anymore. "If Microsoft tried to make it complicated, annoying and decided to irritate customers, they couldn't have done it better than this." Well, they could've just charged $29 for the upgrade, and then subsequently slapped customers in the face by wiping all their data. "the correlation of measurable copies downloaded and copies actually running is tenuous as people download multiple distributions but keep using, at best, one for actual use " I've downloaded Linux many times, but never used it on a day-to-day basis because of reliability and/or compatibility issues. It just never works as advertised. I'd like to get a cheap netbook and actually try out Moblin 2.0 on it as a spare PC for fun on the internet, but Moblin is missing support for a lot of hardware in todays netbooks. Drivers for GMA 500 should be there by now, and it isn't friendly with screens with a higher resolution than 1024x600, which makes it obsolete. Even Canonical's Ubuntu Moblin Remix is designed only to run on the Dell Mini 10v.
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 3, 2009
"Editing .ini files, doing registry hacks for a freaking OS upgrade?" Like I said before, the process could have been much clearer, that is for sure. However, you are still calling up hacks, and in the case of the hack from RC to RTM, an unsupported hack at that. The 62% problem has been solved, and a FixIt is available, negating the need for any hacks. Additionally, the editing of the ei.cfg file is also for a very small subset of users. I did in fact do that, but only because I hard already created a USB media stick with all of the files already on it. Much easier to hack that one little file than copy all of the data again, since I have Pro and Ultimate on my home computers. In either case, if you purchase the proper upgrade version for your scenario, no hack is necessary.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 3, 2009
"So you're saying you were being a pedant and not actually trying to make any useful point?" Stone, meet glass wall.
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 3, 2009
As the registry burns......
Dipsh t Admin
on Nov 3, 2009
chuck and BladRnr, once again, this hack that is being described is for people that want to install the RTM over RC, which is UNSUPPORTED by MS, and was explicitly stated during the testing of RC that this would NOT be a supported upgrade path. I'm not sure where the DOS references come up, since none of this procedure has to be performed in the command prompt. You're really just editing a file, and you only need to copy these files to another place since DVD's stamped from the factory are not directly editable. So only people that want to get around this restriction need to perform this hack, which is an incredibly small subset of users. I would also say that an install from USB media would negate this as well, as the file can be edited right on the media, as well as increased install speed. I chose to clean install.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use