Upgrade license questions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Hello,

Have been lurking here for a while, and this is my first post.

I have two laptops here that are running the Windows Vista Ultimate RTM,
which of course is in the evaluation period since I didn't enter a product
key during setup.

I would like to purchase two upgrade licenses since both of these laptops
came from the factory with Windows XP installed. Can I just call Microsoft
and purchase a product key from them for the upgrade? I have my own media
and I really don't want to have to pay for shipping and such. I was part of
the CPP evaluation for RC1 and 2. I would also rather go with the OEM
upgrade licenses since I am a very technical person and wouldn't be calling
microsoft for any type of support and such that is included with retail
products. Just curious on this.

As a side note, I am very impressed with the hardware compatibility work
that has been done with Vista since it's release. My Konica-Minolta
Magicolor 2430DL finally works with Vista.

Thanks in advance.
 
Ken;
As you probably know, the upgrade will be cheaper than the full version.
If you purchase upgrades, it will be necessary for you to have Windows XP
installed.
Unlike Windows XP, Windows Vista requires the qualifying operating system to
be installed.
You can not simply insert the qualifying media as you could when upgrading
to Windows XP.
If you purchase the full version, you should be able to simply insert the
Product Key and activate what you already have installed.
In either case, you probably will not be able to call and purchase a Product
Key.

Normally OEM licenses are for installation on a new computer so there is no
upgrade option.
Participation in the CPP is irrelevant and has no effect on pricing or
upgrade options.
 
For consumers, purchasing a product key is simply purchasing a retail
package. You do not have to reinstall to enter the pk. You click activate
and enter the pk when the activation wizard asks for it. The pk must be for
the edition you installed. Do NOT use the Change Product Key button for
this because you have not yet entered the first one. Since you did not
enter a pk when you installed you are running a full edition and an upgrade
edition product key will not work. This is true even if you used the
upgrade functionality to upgrade XP to Vista.
 
Ken;
My understanding is Microsoft did this to slow another form of casual
piracy, using the same CDs as qualifying media for numerous computers.
This new system makes it more difficult since the qualifying product must be
installed.
Part of the blame also go to those who illegitimately installed with an
upgrade when the full version was more appropriate.

I doubt this could be considered illegal at all since having the previous OS
is required and now it must also be installed.

You can choose the full version as many do to avoid this or save $ with an
upgrade but get the disadvantages that come with the lower cost.
 
Thanks for that explanation, I did not know why Microsoft changed the way an
upgrade install works. Now it makes sense.
Stevek
 
Jupiter said:
Ken;
My understanding is Microsoft did this to slow another form of casual
piracy, using the same CDs as qualifying media for numerous computers.
This new system makes it more difficult since the qualifying product
must be installed.
Part of the blame also go to those who illegitimately installed with an
upgrade when the full version was more appropriate.

I doubt this could be considered illegal at all since having the
previous OS is required and now it must also be installed.

You can choose the full version as many do to avoid this or save $ with
an upgrade but get the disadvantages that come with the lower cost.
Click to expand...

Jupiter:

It is not the XP media that should matter; it is the XP product Key.
Many people will lend their media, but no sane person will lend his PK
for a product like XP that requires activation.

By tying the qualifying OS to Vista activation, rather than
installation, it would have been so easy to get rid of this "qualifying
OS must be physically installed" requirement.

David Wilkinson
 
For an upgrade to Windows XP, the CD was all that was required.
For Vista, now you also need the key.
That will all but eliminate the casual piracy where the person is not aware
of what they are doing.

As for another way, that could always have been argued whichever way
Microsoft chose.
For reasons we may never fully know, Microsoft chose this particular method.
 
That's a great explanation, Jupiter.

Let me just add my thoughts about the cost of piracy being added to the cost
of Vista. Have you ever seen those cops shows on TV where they show a thief
in a department store stealing half a rack of Levis and getting out the
door? They often report how much shoplifting and thieves add to the cost of
the products we buy. And we are, all of us, glad when the thief gets
caught. That is as it should be. Their thievery adds to the price we all
pay.

The same thing applies to Windows. Most of the DRM that we are so unhappy
with now may never have come about without the huge amount of software and
multimedia that has been stolen openly and publicly through illegal
downloads over the past 10 years. That's a double-whammy on the price of
Windows. Microsoft has to spend a small fortune developing and coding ways
to try to slow the loss of their intellectual property. In addition to the
development costs, they also add to the price we pay for their products in
order to recoup the lost revenue of what is stolen in spite of the
protections they have built in.

So, in the end, you and Ken and all the other readers of this newsgroup who
legitimately buy Vista, including me, will all pay more for the Vista and
all have to put up with the inconveniences of activation and installing XP
previous to an upgrade because of the behavior and actions of a dishonest
few. We should all keep in mind that we're paying the price for the thieves
when we see thieves in these groups openly discussing, and even bragging,
that they beat the system and found a way to steal from Microsoft.

Look at Microsoft's earnings. They're still making billions. Look at the
price of Vista. We're paying a lot more! So who are the thieves hurting?
Microsoft? NO. They're hurting all of us, in and out of these groups, who
legitimately purchase software or other things we own.

There's no excuse for tolerance of thievery. Remember that it costs us all.

Dale
 
Colin said:
I believe Setup also verifies that the running copy of Windows passes WGA.
Click to expand...

Colin:

As we have discussed before, it would have been so easy (at Vista
activation time) for Vista to check that the XP Product Key "could have
passed WGA" on the machine in question. Requiring physical installation
proves nothing additional, and will cause endless consternation.

David Wilkinson
 
Dale,

Well stated. I liked your analogy to the department store theif. In a way,
it is even worse with software and copyrighted material because the person
stealing it is more anonymous as he/she sits behind their computer screen.

I still think you have to find a happy medium if possible though. In this
case I feel Microsoft is trying to thwart the efforts of pirates or thieves
at the expense of also alienating their customers...which isn't cool.

I am impressed with Windows Vista though. It has come a very long way, and
Microsoft has come a long way in beefing up security as well...so hats off to
them for that.

Thanks to all those who responded to answer my question. It looks like I
will have to spring for the full version.
 
Regardless of how Microsoft implements thier protections, just remember to
thank the posters in here who openly admit or brag about having stolen
Windows Vista. They brought it on you.

Dale
 
My two-cents, the thievery includes the various layers of politicians and
governments that bring ridiculous lawsuits solely to raise revenues for
their every growing bureaucracies. These represent nothing more than
additional taxation by another name for which we all pay.
 
Absolutely. Tolerating thievery in our government, politicians, employers,
or anywhere else leads to the acceptance or the attitude that allows thieves
to tell us that it is none of our business.

An amazing thing to me is people who download illegal software or music for
their children or wives to use. I couldn't live with myself if I did that
to my family.

Dale
 
The fact of the matter is- as long as people want to
steal, they will. Protecting software bits is quite a bit
different than protecting clothing in a store. Some very
smart folks across the world spend hours messing around
with Microsoft's OSs. If they want to crack it or provide
work a rounds to activation and DRM, they will. Microsoft
will never win that battle- it is futile. Most folks won't steal,
and that's why Microsoft has such an enormous profit level,
and being a de facto monopoly.
But, I can sense there are folks starting to get fed up with
all the hoops with WGA, activation, and that DRM crap.

The bottom line- Microsoft has one of the highest profit ratios
in the world. It took them about $39 billion to make over
$12.2 billion in profit. They are number 48 on Fortune's
list in terms of revenue. No. 7 in terms of profit.
It took Exxon $340 billion to make a profit of $36 billion.
A store that sells those jeans you mention, Wal-Mart,
had $315 billion in revenue and a profit of $11 billion.
Microsoft made more money than the Wal-Mart.
IBM had almost triple the revenue of Microsoft, No.10
on the list. But IBM only had $7 billion in profit.
HP had revenue of $87 billion and only a profit of
$2.4 billion. Microsoft had twice the profit of Dell,
even though Dell had 4 times as much revenue.
Seems to me, Microsoft has a pretty dam good markup-
they are certainly not hurting. Oh, they are also No. 3
in market value- $284 billion. There are countries that
aren't worth that much.

So, while I do not believe in thievery, I don't have much
sympathy for Microsoft.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/full_list/
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/performers/companies/profits/index.html
 
You shouldn't have sympathy on them. They're passing all the costs related
to piracy on to you and me.

Their gross profits (and I mean as in disgusting not as in before taxes) do
not justify stealing. Those who steal from Microsoft have no right to
complain about Microsoft's behavior.

Dale
 
I just don't agree. If there were no piracy, Microsoft would
not lower the price. They charge as much as they think the
market will bare, and they get away with it because they are
a monopoly. While Microsoft may spend a lot on R&D, it costs
them practically nothing to build bits of software- they have so little
overhead compared to most businesses, it's sickening. That's why they
have such a huge profit margin.

-Michael
 
One last thing, Dale. Here are some updated figures for Microsoft.

Client revenue (Windows) was $13 billion. Profit was $10 billion.
That is a staggering profit to revenue margin- incredible. Client revenue
is about a third of all revenue but most of its profit. If OEM
sales are over 90% of Windows sales, and retail doesn't mean that much
to Microsoft (as many say in this forum)- why do they care so much about
piracy?

The other cash cow- Information Worker (Office). $11 billion in revenue
and $8 billion in profit, just incredible.

They lose a lot of money on the XBOX (still), MSN, and a division called
"Corporate-Level Activity" aka lawyers, fines, legal settlements and contingencies.

The Home and Entertainment division (XBOX) lost $1.2 billion.
MSN division lost $77 million.
Corporate-Level Activity cost the company $5 billion.

Seems to me, Microsoft needs to look to those poorly performing
divisions. Perhaps, divert some of the enormous talent and resources
going into preventing piracy and put them to work some place else.


http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY06/earn_rel_q4_06.mspx#income
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY06/earn_rel_q4_06.mspx
Redmond, Wash. – July 20, 2006 – Microsoft Corp. today announced record fourth quarter revenue
of $11.80 billion for the period ended June 30, 2006, a 16% increase over the same quarter of
the prior year. Operating income for the quarter was $3.88 billion, a 30% increase compared
with $2.99 billion in the prior year period. Operating income for the fourth quarter included
certain legal charges of $351 million, compared with $756 million in the prior year period. Net
income for the fourth quarter was $2.83 billion and diluted earnings per share were $0.28,
which included $0.03 of certain legal charges. For the same quarter of the previous year, net
income was $3.70 billion and diluted earnings per share were $0.34, which included $0.05 of
certain legal charges and $0.09 of tax benefits.

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2006, the company announced revenue of $44.28 billion, an
11% increase over the prior year. Operating income for the fiscal year was $16.47 billion, or
13% over the prior year period. Operating income for the fiscal year included $1.11 billion for
certain legal charges, compared with $2.06 billion in the prior year period. Net income for the
fiscal year was $12.60 billion and diluted earnings per share were $1.20, which included $0.08
of certain legal charges and $0.01 of tax benefits. For the previous fiscal year, net income
and diluted earnings per share were $12.25 billion and $1.12, which included $0.13 of certain
legal charges and $0.09 of tax benefits.
 
Back
Top