As stated in my, “Answers from Windows 7 Upgrade Install Hack post coming on Monday,” post, here is a collection of many questions I have posted answers to from my, “Regardless of what any hack says, a Windows 7 Upgrade is an Upgrade. What you need to know,” post. Please note, this list will continue to grow as I continue to add more posts over the next several days to address more of the questions I have received and continue to receive, so be sure to check back to see what else you may have missed!
Here you go:
Thank you and have a wonderful day,
Eric Ligman – Follow me on TWITTER and RSS Global Partner Experience Lead Microsoft Worldwide Partner Group This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights Bookmark on: MSDN , TechNet, and Expression
Are you aware at how (unintentionally) funny these posts are? It's like you gathered up all the negative connotations of Microsoft as a technobabble speaking, non-listening, out-of-touch, evil corporation and rolled them all up into your posts.
The question as to who (what) the hack is/was should have been answered in a one line comment (or even better, as an update correction) to the original post, not a 3,000 word dance around the question.
And nowhere in any of your writings (that I have found, correct me if I'm wrong), do you even attempt to address the fundamental question here: Why has Microsoft made it so hard to do a (legal) clean install to Windows 7 using upgrade media? We're aware we "have the licensing rights to do a “clean” install", but without the Bott/Thurrott hacks, we don't have the technical ability.
Microsoft has chosen to obfuscate, to accuse, and to stick their head in the sand over the (very real and common) issue that many of us have: we want to be able to clean install a legal copy of Windows 7 upgrade, while posessing a qualifying license. Your posts have done nothing to address this issue, and indeed, have added not only to the confusion, but to the negative impression Microsoft leaves with us. This whole series is a(nother) giant #FAIL
From Pauls latest blog posting:
"What really cracks me up is that this post quotes the most relevant EULA-based part of this argument. Which is this:
To use upgrade software, you must first be licensed for the software that is eligible for the upgrade.
Exactly. That's who I'm supporting. Millions and millions of people. Many of which are discovering that their Upgrade version of Windows 7 will not install properly on their existing, Windows-based PCs. The PCs that are supposed to support upgrades.
This should be obvious. Please stop suggesting it's not, or that I am doing something else.
And for the nth time, you could (and should) have clearly documented how this works months ago. Or allowed myself and others to do so. You chose to ignore this need. So this is a problem of your own making. It's that simple. You make it too hard. And then you complain when someone else tries to make it easy."
Come on, as Paul says Microsoft could have prevented this argument months ago by posting the full and precise details of how the Windows 7 upgrade process works and how it should be performed.
Microsoft and loud-mouthed self-opinionated employes who stick their foot in their mouths should have no place online let alone calling other folks "pirates" or worse.
@ Kip - As a former system builder professionally and still system builder personally (http://bit.ly/1RjEus) and having done numerous upgrade and clean O/S installs over the years, I hear you and what you are saying about the information regarding install process. I have asked for and will continue to help try to find the answer to this question and point you to it once I hear the answer back.
My post, as stated, was specifically about how the upgrade LICENSING itself works and the requirements of it. It was not in anyway about the technical "how to" or "not how to" from a process perspective, since I am not part of the technical team here at Microsoft and would never claim to be posting a techincal solution.
Thank you for the feedback.
@ Simon - Thanks for the feedback. I absolutely agree with Paul's and your statement that based on the wording in the Upgrade EULA, it "should" be obvious; however, from the numerous emails, comments, posts, etc. that I get and see over and over, it is quite apparent that there are many people who do not understand this. Hence the reason I wrote the post to explain it, again. In fact, this is a topic that has been covered several times, each time because it keeps showing up as a question, which again points to the fact that while it "should" be obvious, it apparently is not.
As for your statements on the techical side, please see my reply to Kip here in the comments on this.
Thanks again for the feedback. I really do appreciate it.
As far as the EULA is concerned, how many people actually read it? It has been written by highly qualified lawyers to ensure that Microsoft is protected against the plethora of lawsuits than it has been subjected to. It has been written in the worst form of legalese and is to a large extent almost a foreign language to most users. Why should you even have to post a blog about the legal use of the software? Because no-one understands the EULA!
Most users just click on the "Accept" button and carry on regardless. What Microsoft should do is to have a one page, easy to read explanation of the contents of the EULA.