Windows 7 Workaround Does Not Allow for Multiple Installs with One Product Key

In the wake of Microsoft's illogical and wrong-headed attack on the so-called Windows 7 installation "hack"--really just a workaround designed to let legitimate Windows customers upgrade their activated copies of XP or Vista to Windows 7 in the manner they prefer--I've started wondering why Microsoft reacted so strongly. After all, their central argument is completely bogus: Most people out there already qualify for Upgrade pricing. And those who really do wish to just save money (by not paying for more expensive Full media) will simply buy OEM media, which costs less than Upgrade media. So it's not about money. Why bother? Why even bring attention to this, especially in such an idiotic, anti-customer fashion?

One theory that occurred to me was that perhaps this workaround would enable a user to install multiple copies of Windows 7 using a single product key. But after testing this, I've found that not to the be case: Each product key (with the exception of those supplied by the Windows 7 Family Pack, of course) allows for only one electronic, automatic activation. I'm not sure how I would have handled this had I somehow unearthed a way to activate multiple PCs on the same key (I probably would have simply told Microsoft about it). But that doesn't happen, thankfully.

So the question still remains. Why would Microsoft allege that many of its customers are thieves? And why would they accuse people like me, who were (and still are) very clear about the licensing requirements of being dishonest about that?

It just doesn't make sense.

Discuss this Article 31

pollycat
on Nov 1, 2009
I don't know why Microsoft bothers with this whole "Upgrade vs. Full" stuff, as just about anybody purchasing a retail Upgrade copy of Windows definitely owns a qualifying previous version of Windows. Who exactly wants / needs / buys the "Full" retail version ever? My guess is virtually no-one. Therefore, wouldn't it make more sense for Microsoft to scrap the "Upgrade / Full" distinction and simply offer "Full" media, allowing for a clean or upgrade install, at a fixed price? This would save a whole lot of bad feeling and bad press about all this. This may have been necessary in the 1990s when PCs were just getting started, but come on, just about every current computer user owns one or more "qualifying" versions of Windows now, so why not just assume this instead of still wanting to "verify" this in some convoluted way?
scarper
on Nov 1, 2009
Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Even when they have a great product that is widely liked they have to throw a wrench in things by releasing goofy, embarrassing, clueless promotions like the party video or by treating their customers inappropriately. Never have I seen a company that tries so hard to make you not want to like them. This is the kind of corporate attitude that allows people to excuse their piracy. Instead of cultivating a loyal following like Apple, Microsoft breeds this hostile relationship with their customers that makes it a lot easier for people to say "they're just a big dumb company that obviously doesn't value my business anyway so who cares if I get a torrent of their latest product?" Meanwhile Apple breeds an army of obsequious drones who trip over each other to give up their cash. It's no mystery why Apple is doing so well. They "get" everything that sails right over Microsoft's clueless head.
Logjamming
on Nov 1, 2009
Is that provided you get past the 62% install, after which W7 will loop endlessly? Yes, yet again: broken promises. W7 is laughable. Even with a test phase of > 6 months with > million users, MS is unable to bring anything substantial. In fact, people are advising to wait until SP1: http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140156/Users_should_delay_Window...
whiplash55
on Nov 1, 2009
I have no problem with the embarrassing party video's they were in a way somewhat awkward and geeky like Microsoft has always been. Making a big deal about the upgrade hack is silly, they're trying to justify their lack of communication about their upgrade "deal". Its to bad, the half off price for upgrade garnered a lot of good will that they just squandered.
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 1, 2009
FUBAR! After reading the many, many blog posts on this site about the upgrade process (what is was going to be, what it is now) and listening to this weeks pod cast I am glad that I dont have to use upgrade media (technet here). It also tells me that the latest Apple ad about moving from XP to 7 is a great time to move to a Mac, is DEAD ON. The good thing for MS is that hardly anyone does an upgrade. Corporations will blow down their builds, 2 years from now when they go to 7 and consumers will buy new computers with 7 on them. Upgrading Windows is a joke. With multiple versions plus the choice of 32bit or 64bit, you end up with way too many possible combinations or scenarios of upgrade nightmares. Microsoft has lost touch with joe consumer.
lketchum
on Nov 1, 2009
Microsoft is reinforcing the understanding of licensing rules in response to all the sites offering the "hack" as a means to circumvent related requirements. Microsoft has been as clear as Paul has about it being entirely legal and possible to perform a clean install using upgrade media, PROVIDED one has a licensed full and available license of a qualifying product. The only ones making a big deal out of this are those reaching for attention, relevance, or a means to either circumvent licensing, or bash Microsoft. Sober individuals are face-palming themselves as they try to point how very clear and simple the entire matter is. The utter nonsense communicated by those trying to suggest that users can't use their upgrade media as intended is particularly silly and alarmist and almost as bad as the ABM drones holding out any single upgrade issue as a sign of the general failure of the new OS. Just put this one down for goodness sake and read what the company has said. It's quite clear and if it is in any way unclear, call the company or consider getting a hobby that requires less skill than it takes to read the instructions on a cake mix box.
anonymous
on Nov 1, 2009
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Everything Microsoft: Windows 7 Workaround Does Not Allow for Multiple Installs with One Product Key http://bit.ly/1AXO4d
g6672D
on Nov 1, 2009
It can't be used as intended by the _USERS_ is the problem. It should be simple. Instead, various upgrade paths are incompatible.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 1, 2009
Paul "Why would Microsoft allege that many of its customers are thieves? " Because the links to your article on how to use the upgrade media were articles like: * Save $80 on your Windows 7 purchase - the Upgrade does full installs, too * Ahorra dinero comprando la actualizaci??n de Windows 7 para instalaciones limpias (save money by buying the update Windows 7 for clean installations) * Use Windows 7 Upgrade Disc to Perform Full Install and Save $80! * Windows 7 install trick saves up to $100 It's like publishing an article on how to pick a door lock and then acting shocked when, despite your intent, it wasn't used that much by homeowners who locked their key in the house or who thought carrying a lockpick was easier than carrying a key but was surprisingly popular with burglers. It doesn't change the innocent intent but it also doesn't change the reality. Remember that the biggest competitor to Windows is stolen copies of Windows. The total installed base of all versions of Linux and Mac OS X aren't even close to catching up with the installed base of illegal, counterfeit copies of Windows itself. Oh, and it isn't Microsoft's "customers" that are thieves. It's the counterfeiters and their customers. They may be users of Microsoft software but they aren't "customers" of Microsoft any more than the guy who steals your car is one of "Ford's customers" or the person paying a fence for the TV burgled from your house is one of "Sony's customers".
johnbaxter
on Nov 1, 2009
I happen to be in one of the groups who have a reason to try to evade the full price installs: Mac users who are doing fresh installs of Windows under either virtualization or "Bootcamp." The first time around, I used a retail full version of XP (with SP1) to do this. At the moment, I have no instances of Windows which descend from that XP, so I can use it again ("installing on replacement hardware" in the phone call) as a base for installing Win 7 upgrade. Lacking that basis, I would (probably) spring for a full version. Except that is theoretical: I used a charity auction at the local computer club (proceeds to scholarships for local kids) to buy a Microsoft-donated (really, not "donated" via abuse of company store) copy for around upgrade price. That will go onto a new Mac laptop when the time comes (the current Mac continues to run Win 7 RC as long as that is viable--which is until June if necessary, as the longest sessions I usually run on it are during user group meetings, and 2 hour sessions work for that). All that said, I'm tempted to buy an HP Touchsmart laptop instead, to play around with touch, and leave the Mac "pure." Side note: I'm careful not to abuse Apple's "honor system," too. I was happy when Apple came up with the "Family Pack" idea, which reduced temptation.
RobertC
on Nov 1, 2009
Care factor = zero. Much ado about nothing, really.
RobertC
on Nov 1, 2009
Btw, despite all the people against in-place upgrades, I've done this twice with two of my Vista Ultimate machines and the in-place upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate went without a hitch. It did take a couple of hours more, but all of my applications, settings and files worked without an issue. All the scaremongering about how bad in-place upgrades are is completely misplaced. So long as your Vista install isn't a complete dog's breakfast, there's no need for a clean install.
lketchum
on Nov 1, 2009
@RobertC, We've performed a great many in-place upgrades without incident. We do remove any/all security software first and remove all temporary files (Internet and others). We also remove (using the purpose built downloadable tool), Adobe FLASH. We remove any/all Apple iTunes related software and related cruft and restart the computer first (to be installed again later, where desired). You'll be glad to know that NO/NO performance gains have been noted by performing clean installs on identical hardware. In-place upgrades have proved to result in computers that are as fast and reliable as those upon which a clean install was performed. Our own internal testing has reflected bench mark results that are identical on systems upgraded in-place as they are on systems where fresh installs were performed. Once upgraded, we re-install appropriate security software and Adobe FLASH player as well as iTunes, where it is used, or desired. On Windows 7 systems supporting it, we install iTunes into XP Mode and try and keep Apple's included software components off of the main installation. Once installed, we open a command console as an administrator and run a manual defragmentation using the command DEFRAG C: -v -w (assuming the desired target is C:) -v provides verbose output and -w addresses files sizes not normally defragmented using defaults. We've not had a single failure so far, nor has any system upgraded displayed any undesired behaviors or errors. I've personally been very pleased to have avoided having to re-install the large amount of software I use on two systems in particular.
RobertC
on Nov 1, 2009
Good to hear lketchum. I upgraded without removing the security software, iTunes or Adobe Flash, and it still worked fine. In fact, performance is much improved, if anything.
lotsamystuff
on Nov 1, 2009
"The only ones making a big deal out of this are those reaching for attention, relevance, or a means to either circumvent licensing, or bash Microsoft." That's not a very nice thing to say about Paul or the "hundreds" of people that have e-mailed him with questions and concerns. Blame the user! <----new Microsoft mantra
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 1, 2009
"Blame the user! <----new Microsoft mantra" And, once again, Lotsa is claiming Microsoft is copying Apple...
runner7775
on Nov 1, 2009
There is no doubt the process needs to be simplified. Someone else mentioned entering in the product key of the previous version to validate. Anyway I have a legitimate upgrade question. My parents used to have a computer with Windows 98 which I bought an XP Home Upgrade for. We moved the copy of Windows XP to a newer computer that I built for them (The copy of windows 98 isnt being used anymore). Is it true that when a copy of windows is upgraded that it essentially becomes a full version? I'm asking this because I am going to be upgrading their computer to windows 7 and I want to make sure that I do it the right way.
fred001
on Nov 1, 2009
Is allowing only 1 (one) electronic activation a new policy for Windows 7? I seem to remember Vista allowing a few electronic activations before it required a phone activation.
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 1, 2009
"It did take a couple of hours more" Yikes that would suck. Then again you only do it once so 3 hours to upgrade over the top of Vista is worth it.
Trimble Epic
on Nov 1, 2009
Ok, so the "Hack" doesn't allow pirates to install another CLEAN copy of windows 7 using the same key... ...but, what about if someone has two machines, both with XP, and uses the upgrade media and key on both of them, going through the "upgrade" process as Microsoft intended, by booting into the XP system first and starting the upgrade from there? If that DID work, it would still be rather hypocritcal of MS to cry foul about the "hack" workaround.
LoopyLou
on Nov 1, 2009
Not sure why MS causing such a fuss. Users not only prefer a clean install of "upgrade" packages but might be forced to on a hardware failure. Wha,t I am supposed to reinstall XP if I have to replace a defective hard drive? Get real.
roteague
on Nov 1, 2009
"It also tells me that the latest Apple ad about moving from XP to 7 is a great time to move to a Mac, is DEAD ON." You are making a huge ASSUMPTION. One that says the two OSs are comparable in look and feel, which they aren't. In my mind, OSX still has an outdated look to it, and is clumbsy to operate. An operating systems look and feel is a personal thing; one can't necessarily satisfy the user as the other. I've always said, I would consider a Mac .... If I could blow away OSX, reformat the drive and run Windows. (and I don't mean running dual boot or any virtualization software - I mean NO OSX)
roteague
on Nov 1, 2009
Microsoft confirms Windows 7 install trick is legal http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9140125/Microsoft_confirms_Window... Microsoft today confirmed that users can apply a workaround trick to do a clean install of Windows 7 on a blank hard drive as long as they toe the licensing line.
mikegalos@msn.com
on Nov 1, 2009
roteague " I would consider a Mac .... If I could blow away OSX, reformat the drive and run Windows. " Next you're going to say you want to be able to buy a Mac without Mac OS X or have the choice to buy and install Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. Why, giving users a choice like that is just crazy talk that might lead to competition. What would Steve Jobs say? :-)
RobertC
on Nov 1, 2009
@rr0de74@live.com Well, two hours or so to in-place upgrade is a small price to pay for spending several more hours reinstalling all of my software and configuring everything to work just as I want it on a clean install. Clean install is fine if you're coming from XP, but there is just no need to waste all that time if you have Vista, since the underlying platform of Windows 7 is quite similar.
EricoF3
on Nov 1, 2009
Mike Galos is right ... again...
adamb1000
on Nov 1, 2009
It's funny how even Mike Galos can praise Microsoft for such an absurd explaination on there upgrading policy. So mike tell us, What do YOU think about how Microsoft has handled this? If you were in charge @ MS what would YOU have done about the upgrade policy for windows 7?
rr0de74@live.com
on Nov 1, 2009
"Clean install is fine if you're coming from XP" especially since its your ONLY choice. @roteague the Apple ad in question states that if you are moving from XP and you HAVE TO re-install everything, why not move to a Mac. Since most new Windows 7 users are coming from XP (60+%) the ad is targeting them at this transition point. I agree the look and feel of an operating system is highly subjective. I think OS X is better operating system than Windows 7 from a look and feel perspective. Also from a ease of use as well. Windows 7 is clearly the best Windows so far, but from a consumer viewpoint OS X still has it beat....my opinion of course. You can run Windows Vista 64bit SP1 or Windows 7 64bit on a Mac with no OS X since both support booting from the DVD and installing on a PC with EFI (no BIOS).
RobertC
on Nov 1, 2009
@rr0de74@live.com OSX is not easy to use. Window management is a pain the ass and expose is not obvious. There is no feedback when you install hardware. Things either work, or they don't and if they don't, there is no reason given. Networking with Windows machines is also needlessly difficult. I could go on, but I don't want this to descend into another Mac vs Windows argument. Use whatever you want.
mcm_ham
on Nov 1, 2009
My understanding about this after reading the various licensing agreements is that the person or company who installs the OEM version agrees to provide support for the software as opposed to the retail or upgrade editions where Microsoft is to provide support. Therefore Microsoft would rather people purchase an OEM version instead of the upgrade edition if they're not entitled to it because now if the person contacts Microsoft for support he will have to pay for it.
realtestman
on Nov 2, 2009
Re: mcm_ham Er... no. OEM are for "Original Equipment Manufacturers", not "end users" or "customers".

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