Upgrade copies of Vista and Win7 can be installed on an empty hard drive with minimal tweaking, but I guess being kosher with the licensing is important for some users.
If you're not willing to honor the license, what possible point would there be to paying for the software in the first place? I'm willing to be a Win8 crack is live on thepiratebay within the week.
The discussion was about whether or not MS has decided to reduce their retail OS price from the ~$100 it is at right now. AFAICT, they have not.
There is a grey area where you can have a Genuine copy of Windows that you paid for (and that can still Windows update) but was derived from an OEM license that was transferred to another machine.
This is still desirable compared to torrenting because a pirated copy will end up failing the Genuine check, will no longer get updates, and will happily be a part of some botnet some day.
That said my current machine is Win7 enterprise that I somehow, if only through brute force rather than actual know-how, managed to convince that its install had been validated.
>If you're not willing to honor the license, what possible point would there be to paying for the software in the first place?
This practice is actually fairly common. For example, almost all the technical people I know have bought OEM licenses rather than retail licenses for previous versions of Windows when they're building new systems. According to Microsoft, an OEM license is only valid if you sell the new system to someone else, not use it yourself[1].
I know plenty of people who would hate to torrent of, say, Photoshop, but also don't think it's worth $550 to them. Having a bought license that's legally of questionable origin is a compromise many non-business users would be more than willing to entertain.
But in case of OEM Windows licence it is black and white, no?
What would be peoples motivation to buy it for existing computer?
* "It's sorta legal, it's at least some kind of a licence, right?" -- they're misinformed / tricked /fools
* "I want to pay something, but retail costs too much" -- if you pay without getting anything useful in return, you're donating. Why not donate to charity?
* "I want to get Windows Updates" -- cracked copies used to get updates, and they're often bundled with updates already applied
My point is, I don't understand buying half-valid licence. Licence is either valid or you have no licence.
I think a valid, although not legal, motivation for that could be "I just want something Microsoft will activate because I want a clean (i.e.: without applying a random crack from the Internet which could install malware) Windows install, at the minimum possible cost".
>* "I want to pay something, but retail costs too much" -- if you pay without getting anything useful in return, you're donating. Why not donate to charity?
Because your sense of fair play says you've got something from MS so they, and not some random charity, deserve some of your money? Do you follow the same logic and donate to charity instead of tipping at restaurants?
It seems to me that many people treat software licences like physical goods in their minds.
The idea of buying a chef's knife from Victorinox for one price if it's to be used to chop vegetables and another if it's to be used to trim fat from steaks is absurd. You buy the knife at the lowest price it's offered and use it however you like.
Software licensing does include the ability to charge different prices for different usage scenarios, but violating those conditions doesn't strike most people as unethical while obtaining the software without paying seems similar to theft.
This is the same reason why the idea that you can't bequeath your iTunes purchases on death seems like lunacy to most people.
Purchased goods are purchased goods, and the idea that something is licensed with restrictions seems ridiculous to most people unless it's something upfront like a subscription that you are paying monthly fees to access.
Does the license really need the installation itself to be an upgrade? That would be silly, as everyone who has tried knows that a Windows installation upgraded from a previous version is never as snappy as a clean installation. And in that case, reinstalling the OS would require user to install the old Windows first. That wouldn't much make sense, would it?
You can do a fresh install, but only if there's already a licensed version of windows on the hard drive. If you previously replaced the OS, then the upgrade won't let you register until you run a command from the shell and say it's ok.
Oh. I thought we were talking about win7 now. It wasn't hard to find when searching for obvious keywords like upgrade verification new install windows whatever.
