Is Microsoft lying

[upup]

I have search the net and Mbb and came to this conclusion;
"The Windows 7 key will work with both 32 and 64 bit."
MS says only if Win7 came with to CD's does the above apply.

So I did upgrade from Win7 home P 32bit to home P 64 bit.
MS says I must buy a new license. That is not going to happen.

 

[Avenue]

is the pope catholic

 

[ponder]

Windows Loader

 

[Mars]

I have search the net and Mbb and came to this conclusion;
"The Windows 7 key will work with both 32 and 64 bit."
MS says only if Win7 came with to CD's does the above apply.

So I did upgrade from Win7 home P 32bit to home P 64 bit.
MS says I must buy a new license. That is not going to happen.

It depends on the version. The retail version of 7 comes with both 64 and 32. That key will work with both. The oem version will only work with one or the other..

As Ponder says...

 

[SirFooK'nG]

Also if u have used your key on one install (be it 32 bit) and have activated it for that 32 bit version you can not use it again on a re-install using the 64 bit... Kinda obvious ?!?

 

[stroebs]

Retail it is possible. OEM... ya no. DSP - Not possible if you change hardware.

Windows Loader by DAZ is your best option. You've paid for a license so don't feel guilty about using Loader.

 

[NomNom]

Retail it is possible. OEM... ya no. DSP - Not possible if you change hardware.

Windows Loader by DAZ is your best option. You've paid for a license so don't feel guilty about using Loader.

+1 Screw them for charging you to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit... it's retarded.

 

[ponder]

+1 Screw them for charging you to upgrade from 32bit to 64bit... it's retarded.

They are just interested in $$$.

I see no reason why you should not be able to simply switch between versions on the condition that you only use it on a single computer. Hell you should be able to dual boot 32 & 64 bit if you want. It's the same product after all.

I would not feel the slightest amount of guilt or even consider it wrong to use Windows Loader in this scenario.

MS, making criminals out of legit users...

 

[Arthur]

...{snip}...Hell you should be able to dual boot 32 & 64 bit if you want. It's the same product after all. {snip}

Well, from a technical and development viewpoint is not the same product. Not by a long chalk. Ask any OS developer. Yes, Microsoft have chosen to give the 32-bit and 64-bit versions nearly identical names, and much the same UI. Those are marketing and aesthetic decisions. Underneath there are many differences of great significance (just try to run the 64-bit version on your 32-bit hardware). Each has development costs that must be recovered. In my view, Microsoft are not being unreasonable in their pricing and licensing rules. IHVs buy a specific version for preinstallation, and they get it at a discount, because the OS becomes part of the package that end-users eventually buy. Retail versions include 32-bit and 64-bit versions and keys, and are priced accordingly - and that's a very reasonable decision from a marketing and inventory management viewpoint. But technically they are separate and different products.

 

[ponder]

Well, from a technical and development viewpoint is not the same product.

From a desktop users perspective it's the same product. They don't give a fsck about the underlying code. Same name, same look, same feel, runs the same programs, gets the same viruses.

 

[Arthur]

From a desktop users perspective it's the same product. They don't give a fsck about the underlying code. Same name, same look, same feel, runs the same programs, gets the same viruses.

Well no. You can't universalise. Some desktop users do care - if they didn't give a fig then we wouldn't be having this discussion. The ornery user who doesn't give a fig also doesn't care whether s/he has 32-bit or 64-bit. But there are users who do care, as this thread clearly shows. These people tend to be somewhat more tech savvy than ornery users, but they wonder why there are pricing differences. My answer was to them - that in fact what appears to be the same products is in fact not. Not sure what you're trying to say, really.