SuperSite Blog : Commentary

Is it OK to Use OEM Windows on Your Own PC? Don't Ask Microsoft

pthurrott — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:16:46 GMT

While researching my most recent article, No OEM For You: Windows 7 OEM Packaging is Not For Individuals, I ran into an issue that I should have foreseen: Microsoft's licensing reads like the Dead Sea Scrolls and you need to be an expert in Aramaic to understand it. I don't speak this EULA language, but I know someone who does, Ed Bott. And coincidentally, but not surprisingly, he was actually working on his own post about the OEM versions of Windows 7 when I pinged him. And as he promised, his own more thorough post is now available. It's a must-read.

If Microsoft expects its customers to take license agreements seriously, it has a responsibility to communicate the terms of those agreements to its customers clearly and unambiguously. As I noted earlier this month, Microsoft does a generally poor job of explaining its complicated rules for how Windows licensing works. But I deliberately left one type of Windows license off that list, because it deserves its own special place in the Corporate Communications Hall of Shame.

I’m talking about OEM System Builder licenses for Windows desktop editions. If you look at any online shopping site that caters to PC enthusiasts, you’ll find these copies displayed alongside the upgrade and full license packages that Microsoft says retail customers are supposed to buy.

According to Microsoft, [those who] bought that software and installed it on their own new (or old) PC ... are violating the terms of the OEM System Builder license agreement, which says, in convoluted language, that you must install the software using the OEM Preinstallation Kit and then resell the PC to a third party. If you install that software on your own PC, you don’t have a “genuine” copy of Windows.

Be sure to check out the full post which, thanks to Microsoft's secretive practices, reads like a Dan Brown mystery, except of course that Ed's post is well-written and has to do with EULAs, and not the Masons. You get the idea.

Rafael is Vindicated: Microsoft Did Steal Open Source Code for USB/DVD Tool

pthurrott — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 21:30:05 GMT

Microsoft just confirmed to me that it has completed an investigation of allegations made by my Windows 7 Secrets co-author, Rafael Rivera, concerning the unauthorized and illegal use of open source code in its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool. The software giant has found that it did, indeed, use the code in question. Here's their official statement about this issue:

As you've likely read, we've been investigating a report that the Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool might contain GPLv2 code. The WUDT is a free tool which was offered by the Microsoft Store that enabled customers to create bootable USB drives or DVD backup media from the electronic software (ESD) edition of Windows 7 that comes in an ISO format.

After looking at the code in question, we are now able to confirm this was indeed the case, although it was not intentional on our part. While we had contracted with a third party to create the tool, we share responsibility as we did not catch it as part of our code review process. We have furthermore conducted a review of other code provided through the Microsoft Store and this was the only incident of this sort we could find.

When it comes to our attention that a Microsoft component contains third party code, our aim is to be respectful of the terms under which that code is being shared. As a result, we will be making the source code as well as binaries for this tool available next week under the terms of the General Public License v2 as described here, and are also taking measures to apply what we have learned from this experience for future code reviews we perform.

Bravo, both to Microsoft for owning up to this and to Rafael for doing what he does. It astonished both Rafael and I over the past week that so many weirdos came out of the woodwork to misrepresent his claim and complain that, somehow, one example of source code theft wasn't enough. One instance of theft is still theft, people. Now that Microsoft has admitted to what it did, I hope the rest of the doubters see the light as well.

How We Really Designed the Look and Feel of Windows 7

pthurrott — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:04:20 GMT

While the Mac community has been chortling over a supposed Microsoft admission that Windows 7 copies the Mac OS X look and feel, the company decided to set the record straight, or at least provide a more official comment about this claim:

An inaccurate quote has been floating around the Internet today about the design origins of Windows 7 and whether its look and feel was “borrowed” from Mac OS X. Unfortunately this came from a Microsoft employee who was not involved in any aspect of designing Windows 7. I hate to say this about one of our own, but his comments were inaccurate and uninformed. If you’re interested in learning more about the design of Windows 7, I suggest reading this AP story with Julie Larson-Green as well as these WSJ (membership required) and Fast Company articles. And here is one of many blog posts on the E7 blog discussing the design process of Windows 7.

That said, there is little doubt that Windows has followed Mac OS X into the world of hardware-backed transparent graphical effects in their respective UIs. And anyone who believes that the Windows 7 taskbar is anything other than a copy of the Mac OS X Dock just isn't paying attention.

Talking Windows 7 Upgrade Media with Microsoft

pthurrott — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:31:26 GMT

So I had an in-person discussion yesterday with Microsoft about how its Windows 7 Upgrade media does (or does not) work. I'm going to update my Clean Install Windows 7 with Upgrade Media article to include this information, but I wanted to communicate it to you as quickly as possible. So here are some data points to consider...

If you run Setup from an existing install of Windows ... Windows 7 will always activate.

If you boot your PC with Windows 7 Upgrade media ... and there is an existing install of Windows on the first partition, Windows 7 will always activate. If the existing install of Windows is on some other partition, Windows 7 should still activate. There are instances in which this won't work--especially when people really muck around with directory structures and so on, but it should activate.

There is one major and important change between Windows Vista and Windows 7 Setup with regards to compliance checking ... In Windows Vista, Setup did the compliance check (to see whether you have a valid prior version of Windows and thus qualify for the Upgrade version) after the phase where you can format the disk. This means you could actually format the disk, thus destroying your previous install, and then fail the compliance check. Microsoft fixed this in Windows 7. That means you can format the disk during Setup: Windows 7 will still activate because the compliance check occurred earlier.

A recovery partition will never qualify you for the Upgrade version. Setup does not understand or parse recovery partitions.

If you clean install Windows 7 with Upgrade media and it does not work for some reason, Microsoft's recommendation is that you call Microsoft Support immediately ... They will get you activated immediately, no questions asked, and the call is free. You're provided with free support calls as part of your purchase.

The Full and Upgrade media for Windows 7 are indeed identical. The only difference is the product key. The code on the discs is the same.

The double-install trick is documented and supported by Microsoft. It's dumb and slow, but Microsoft does support the double-install method (Method #3 in my Clean Install Windows 7 with Upgrade Media article) for clean installing Windows 7 with Upgrade media. They do not support the Registry hack (Method #2 in my Clean Install Windows 7 with Upgrade Media article) but couldn't think of a reason why it should be avoided otherwise. (I think they just don't like it.) The vibe I got was that if you ever had problems later, you could always call Microsoft support for free and they'd just fix it.

A Bit of Backpedaling and an Apology from Microsoft

pthurrott — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:05:50 GMT

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.

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

pthurrott — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:25:36 GMT

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.

Enough, Microsoft. No One Is Endorsing Piracy. Obviously.

pthurrott — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:30:50 GMT

I love the self-righteous nature of this little Microsoft post, which quite clearly addresses the "hack" I published the other day without actually providing a link or naming names.

Unfortunately, it looks like it is time to have this conversation again though. Over the past several days there have been various posts, etc. across a variety of social media engines stating that some “hack” (be it a person or a procedure) shows that a Windows 7 Upgrade disc can perform a “clean” installation of Windows 7 on a blank drive from a technical perspective. Of course, from the posts I saw, they often forgot to mention a very basic, yet very important piece of information… “Technically possible” does not always mean legal.

Hey, Microsoft. Duh.

Let's be very clear about something here: I'm not endorsing piracy. Obviously. I'm just trying to support the millions of people that Microsoft fooled into pre-ordering Windows 7 by offering steep discounts, only to discover later that the Upgrade version they purchased unknowingly might not actually install properly. I've gotten hundreds of emails about this. I suspect Microsoft has gotten many times that number. So you know what? I'm going to continue supporting Windows users. Even as Microsoft throws them to the wind with this kind of baloney.

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.

Brilliant.

Microsoft Signature Software

pthurrott — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 13:46:53 GMT

I was reading another great Todd Bishop article about Microsoft's attempts to sell crapware-less Windows 7-based PCs and came across an interesting bit. Sure, selling crapware-less PCs is great. But Microsoft is formally defining what it calls Microsoft Signature software, preinstalled Microsoft software and technologies that turn a stock Windows 7 PC into a "Signature PC."

This is interesting to me because, in the writing of Windows 7 Secrets this year, I decided it was important to not just cover what comes in the (increasingly irrelevant) box, so to speak, but to also include chapters and information about the "sticky" Microsoft products and technologies that I think are as key to the Windows experience as some of the stuff that does come in Windows itself. So I'm fascinated to see that the list of Microsoft Signature software is very close to the additional software I cover in Windows 7 Secrets. This includes:

Microsoft Security Essentials
Microsoft Silverlight
Bing 3D Maps
Zune 4.0
Windows Live Essentials - Windows Live Messenger, Windows Live Mail, Windows Live Photo Gallery and more
Some third party technologies like Adobe Flash and Adobe Reader

I would love to see Zune simply become part of Windows in the future and wouldn't be surprised to see that happen. But then, why not Security Essentials and Windows Live Essentials as well?

HP's End-Run Around the Windows 7 Starter Limitations

pthurrott — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 00:56:42 GMT

As you must know by now, Microsoft has severely limited the ways in which you can customized its lowest-end Windows 7 version, Windows Starter Edition. (See Windows 7 Starter? That's How They Get You for more information.) The worst of these limitations, of course, is that users cannot customize the desktop wallpaper. Instead, they're stuck with what Microsoft provides: A single background image.

Today, Rafael posts about an HP netbook that appears to get around this limitation. How they do it is interesting. Lame. But interesting.

Nicholas R., initially emailing Paul, noticed HP was somehow bypassing this restriction according to a bulleted claim on their Mini 110 netbook product page:

The unique ability to change the wallpaper in Windows 7 Starter: a specialized theme includes a custom screen saver and 15 wallpapers designed by Boontje.

How is this possible?

Upon clicking the Customize and Buy link on HP’s website, and clicking through the various customizable components, you’ll discover the included software bundle consisting of some simple applications and a copy of Stardock MyColors, designed for Windows 7. For those unaware, MyColors is simply a stripped down WindowBlinds application targeting the download-and-apply-my-theme users that don’t need the power (or cost) of WindowBlinds. The internals, however, are the same. As this software replaces the Microsoft Windows theming subsystem with its own, it completely bypasses any and all license restrictions imposed by Microsoft.

So is it legal? You have to think HP, a major league Microsoft partner, got the OK from the software giant.

I mean. They must have. Right?

And the Number One Reason to Upgrade to Windows 7 is...

pthurrott — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:53:19 GMT

With Windows 7 barreling toward an October 22 worldwide launch, pundits, reviewers, and others are weighing in with their opinions, all of which, tellingly, are quite positive. One interesting recent trend is proclaiming why it is that Windows 7 is so great. And in keeping with the simplicity mantra in Windows 7, some are actually trying to push the notion that there is just one reason why you want to upgrade to Windows 7.

For example, Brier Dudley over at The Seattle Times says that that reason is quality.

The software debuting Oct. 22 practically sells itself.

Quality is, thankfully, the biggest selling point for the software that will soon run most of the world's PCs.

Window expert Ed Bott, meanwhile, argues that drivers is the reason.

You want to know why Windows 7 isn’t going to be another Vista? Here’s one big reason: drivers. This time, hardware makers seem to be keeping pace with the operating system and the hardware.

They're both right. And that's the thing with Windows 7. There is no single reason why Windows 7 is awesome, just like there's no single huge feature that will draw in users. Instead, Microsoft has engineered hundreds, perhaps thousands, of meaningful changes and updates into Windows 7. Many are big deals, most are not. But in one of those "seeing the forest for the trees" moments, the sum of all these improvements far outweighs any single change. Windows 7 is a perfect storm of improvements and timing. It is the right product for the right time.

More important, perhaps, Windows 7 is, quite obviously, the most well-conceived version of Windows ever created. I carefully worded that phrase because one might expect that any given version of Windows is "the best version of Windows" ever created. That's absolutely been true of every single previous Windows version, at the time. (Yes, even Windows Me. Really.) But what makes Windows 7 so special isn't any one improvement. It's not that it erases the perceptions (right and wrong) about Vista. It's not just that's it's shipping when it's shipping. It's a combination of things.

I'll elaborate on this in the conclusion to my Windows 7 review later this week. But the long story short is that Windows 7 is the real deal. And as a long-time Windows watcher, it's nice to finally see Microsoft firing on all cylinders in a way they haven't since Windows 95. This is a company full of very smart people that often makes some incredibly bone-headed mistakes. That's not happening with Windows 7. Not at all.

Windows 7 is the perfect storm.

Windows 8 To Be 128-bit Only? LOL

pthurrott — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:13:22 GMT

Wow. I have to admit, the most amazing thing about this rumor is that anyone believed it. I won't single anyone out, but spare me. It's completely and utterly bogus. Obviously.

As Expected, Security Software Makers Mock Microsoft's Free AV

pthurrott — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:17:08 GMT

You had to see this one coming. They did it when Microsoft shipped Windows Live OneCare and then raced to create their own me-too products. But what will Symantec and McAfee do now that Microsoft is providing Windows users with free AV? Whine, of course. IDG News reports:

"Security Essentials won't change anything," said Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering. "Microsoft has a really bad track record in security," he added, ticking off several ventures into consumer security that the giant has tried, including Windows Defender, an anti-spyware tool bundled with Windows Vista and Windows 7; the released-monthly Malicious Software Removal Tool; and OneCare.

I'd remind people that Symantec still sells its OneCare rip-off, Norton 360, right next to its normal Norton AV and Norton Internet Security suites. You know, it's the same. But different.

In a company blog, another Symantec employee called Security Essentials a "rerun" of OneCare, and said: "At the end of the day, Microsoft Security Essentials is a rerun no one should watch."

Ah boy. I wonder if that guy works on Norton 360.

I think Microsoft Security Essentials is excellent, but then I also exercise common sense online. From what I can tell, that's the best defense.

iPhone Apps Store has 2 billionth download

pthurrott — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:46:28 GMT

It's hard to overstate how successful the iPhone Apps Store is. Check out the latest figures from Apple:

Apple today announced that more than two billion apps have been downloaded from its revolutionary App Store, the largest applications store in the world. There are now more than 85,000 apps available to the more than 50 million iPhone and iPod touch customers worldwide and over 125,000 developers in Apple’s iPhone Developer Program.

"The rate of App Store downloads continues to accelerate with users downloading a staggering two billion apps in just over a year, including more than half a billion apps this quarter alone," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO. "The App Store has reinvented what you can do with a mobile handheld device, and our users are clearly loving it."

And I want to highlight this little fact (see the bolded bit) because I think it speaks to the single greatest weakness in the Zune platform:

Today, iPhone and iPod touch customers in 77 countries worldwide can choose from an incredible range of apps in 20 categories, including games, business, news, sports, health, reference and travel.

77 countries. Yikes.

An Operating System for the Cloud

pthurrott — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 15:38:32 GMT

You have to be a paid subscriber to read the full article (or just purchase the print version, or pay online per article) but MIT's Technology Review has published a fascinating article about Google's Chrome OS efforts by none other than "Showstoppers" author G. Pascal Zachary. Here's a peek.

Eric Schmidt, Google's chief executive, said no for six years. Google's main source of revenue, which reached $5.5 billion in its most recent quarter, is advertising. How would the project they envisioned support the company's advertising business? The question wasn't whether Google could afford it. The company is wonderfully profitable and is on track to net more than $5 billion in its current fiscal year. But Schmidt, a 20-year veteran of the IT industry, wasn't keen on shouldering the considerable costs of creating and maintaining an OS and browser for no obvious return.

Finally, two years ago, Schmidt said yes to the browser. The rationale was that quicker and more frequent Web access would mean more searches, which would translate into more revenue from ads. Then, in July of this year, Schmidt announced Google's intention to launch an operating system as well. The idea is that an OS developed with the Internet in mind will also increase the volume of Web activity, and support the browser.

Google's browser and OS both bear the name Chrome. At a year old, the browser holds a mere 2 to 3 percent share of a contested global market, in which Microsoft's Internet Explorer has a majority share and Firefox comes in second. The Chrome operating system will be released next year. Today, Windows enjoys around 90 percent of the global market for operating systems, followed by Apple's Mac OS and the freeware Linux. Does Google know what it's doing?

Going after Microsoft's operating system used to be hopeless. When I covered the company for the Wall Street Journal in the 1990s, I chronicled one failed attempt after another by software innovators to wrest control of the field from Bill Gates ...

So for Schmidt to finally agree to develop an OS suggests less a technological shift than a business revolution. Google's new ventures "are game changers," he now says.

What has changed? Google has challenged the Microsoft franchise, further diminishing a declining force. The latest quarter gave Microsoft the worst year in its history. Revenue from its various Windows PC programs, including operating systems, fell 29 percent in the fiscal quarter that ended in June. Some of the decline stems from the global economic slowdown. But broad shifts in information technology are also reducing the importance of the personal computer and its central piece of software, the OS. In many parts of the world, including the two most populous countries, China and India, mobile phones are increasingly the most common means of reaching the Web. And in the rich world, netbooks, which are ideal for Web surfing, e-mailing, and Twittering, account for one in every 10 computers sold.

Good stuff. If you're in a bookstore, grab the October issue and check it out.

Google: Apple DID reject Google Voice. Thus, Apple DID lie to the FCC

pthurrott — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:04:05 GMT

Google's response (here it is in PDF format) to the FCC firmly states that Apple lied, pure and simple:

Apple's representatives informed Google that the Google Voice application was rejected because Apple believed the application duplicated the core dialer functionality of the iPhone. The Apple representative indicated that the company did not want applications that could potentially replace such functionality.

[Apple senior vice president Phil] Schiller informed [Google] that Apple was rejecting the Google Voice application.

Google Latitude was also rejected, and Google noted that there was no contact at all from AT&T about these issues. Meanwhile, Google continues to "work with" Apple. You know, as much as you can.

Game, set, match. And if there is anyone out there that still believes Apple, seriously, get a life.