Microsoft exec loses his cool on Vista upgrades
By
Brian Livingston
Scott Dunn was the first journalist to reveal on
Apr. 3, 2008,
that Vista Service Pack 1 allows its "upgrade edition" to be clean-installed just like its "full edition."
This is a feature that hasn't changed in Vista since I described it back on
Feb. 1, 2007.
The fact that the trick still exists in SP1 — more than one year later — is strong evidence that at least some high Microsoft officials wanted it left in.
I added details in an
Apr. 10, 2008,
column. I reported that Microsoft Knowledge Base article
930985,
which says Vista itself is a "compliant version" for a clean install, has recommended the procedure since March 2007 with no indication that this is a violation of any end-user license agreement (EULA).
Both Scott and I quoted Microsoft spokespersons who stated that clean-installing the upgrade edition of Vista without having previously purchased a licensed copy of Windows 2000, XP, or 2003 violated Vista's EULA. Unfortunately, only low-level PR representatives had responded to Scott's requests for comment, and Microsoft prohibits these reps from being identified by name.
Finally, a Microsoft executive made an on-the-record comment about Vista's clean-install trick, and it was a doozy. An article by Jason Mick in Daily Tech reported on
Apr. 16
that Eric Ligman, senior manager for Microsoft Partners, had offered on his blog a "raving retort":
-
"Just because something will install does not make it legal. For example, a pirated piece of software will (usually) physically install; however, running pirated software is 100% illegal (and who knows what else it will install on or do to your computer). If you don't believe me, try calling 888-NO-PIRACY and letting them know that you are running pirated software throughout your company."
The clean-install trick requires that an end user pay for a licensed, retail copy of Windows Vista — not a free, hacker copy. One comment posted by Matthew P. on Eric's blog provides a perfect example of a legitimate reason to use the clean-install method:
-
"I bought Vista. The 'loophole' in question was the only way I could get Vista to install. When I (down)graded to Vista, it was completely unstable and many things didn't work. Rather than reloading my ghosted XP and trying for a third time, I went ahead and used this workaround. I have a legal, purchased OEM Windows XP Home that had only ever been run on this machine."
Stretching the term "piracy" to besmirch individuals who've paid for a retail copy of Vista — and are doing what the Knowledge Base recommends to solve a problem — renders the word meaningless. Implying that the Business Software Alliance, which operates 888-NO-PIRACY, would harass people who happened to install a paid-up copy of Vista in a certain way borders on hysteria.
I'd guess that about 99% of Windows Secrets readers have at some point purchased a legitimate copy of Windows 2000, XP, or 2003. These people are unquestionably entitled to purchase and use the upgrade edition of Vista. But buying a retail package of Vista would be a silly way to try to save money.
Scott has reported several times — most recently on May 24, 2007 — that Microsoft sells so-called OEM versions of Vista for much less than retail copies. His article demonstrated that individuals who are building a single PC can clearly buy OEM software under Microsoft's current rules. In an article on Apr. 26, 2007, Scott showed that OEM full editions of Vista cost about one-fourth less than retail upgrade editions.
It's ridiculous to label as "pirates" people who buy Vista at the retail price and then use a built-in feature as recommended by the Knowledge Base. The whole controversy was best put into perspective by Lance Ulanoff, editor-in-chief of PC Magazine, who wrote a response to the flap on Apr. 17:
-
"Looking at the comments, it's obvious that [Microsoft reseller] partners are dealing with a wave of rejection. It's not all about price, either. They can't seem to get current customers to upgrade to Microsoft's latest OS, and some of them do not have much faith in Vista, anyway:
" 'I think the real issue is, why bother installing Vista at all? What does it give me over XP? You stripped most of the features out that we were looking forward to before RTM, so this isn't much more than a slower, prettier XP. Meh. I'll be waiting for Windows 7. Hopefully, Microsoft gets that right,' remarked one in a blog comment.
"This is from someone who's supposed to be out in the field representing Microsoft's products."
Vista's upgrade trick is not a way to "steal" the operating system. The series of dialog boxes we've described was programmed in by Microsoft developers because there are legitimate cases in which a clean install is best for security and stability.
The disconnect between Vista developers, who included the trick, and Redmond's top executives, who rail against its use, is newsworthy. Furthermore, this is an important feature of Vista that legitimate Windows users have a right to know about. It's our job as journalists to report the facts and let you decide for yourself.
At this point, I'd like to call on Eric Ligman and other Microsoft execs to calm down and give us some assurances. Promise us that the clean-install method will still work when you release Vista Service Pack 2 and all future upgrades to Vista. The trick has a valid reason to be in there. The developers who work for your company put it in there for that purpose. Your developers aren't supporting piracy. They're trying to make your products usable, whatever situation a user may run into.
Former PC World editor joins Windows Secrets
The roster of printed magazines continues to shrink, while the world of online publications keeps growing and growing.
There's evidence of that close to home, as Windows Secrets has attracted a top editor who, until recently, was producing the dead-trees version of PC World magazine.
I have nothing against print publications, mind you. I myself was a contributing editor of PC World for two years, writing a monthly column in the '90s. It's just that the action in publishing today has moved online.
Dennis O'Reilly (left) has agreed to become the technical editor of Windows Secrets, effective immediately. He's already working with me to sharpen our writing on Windows. He'll soon begin sending you his insights via our Known Issues column and elsewhere on our site.Dennis edited PC World from early 2000 through December 2007, ending with the title of senior associate editor. In that capacity, he oversaw the magazine's general reporting and its award-winning Here's How section. Among other chores, he edited a monthly column in that section that's been written for years by our associate editor, Scott Dunn.
Financial pressures have been widely reported as causing staff reductions at PC World, but Dennis left voluntarily to better express his creativity online. CNET, the influential tech site, earlier this year gave him an office-tips blog entitled Workers' Edge, where Dennis posts as often as he can. Windows Secrets will keep him busy the rest of the time.
Prior to PC World, Dennis was a senior editor of Ziff Davis's Computer Select subscription service from 1985 to early 2000. (He is no relation to Tim O'Reilly, the founder of O'Reilly Media, which produces books and conferences.)
We're all proud that someone with Dennis's experience will be polishing our work, and I hope you'll enjoy his writing, too.
Brian Livingston is editorial director of WindowsSecrets.com and the co-author of Windows Vista Secrets and 10 other books.
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Other
Permalink
