Ripped off by Windows 7

I guess the blame falls on both parties; the OP for not doing the research and MS for not clearly stating the fact that Home Basic and Home Premium only supports one physical CPU/socket.

Anywaste, as with previous versions of Windows, only the Professional version (and higher) supported multi-processors (not to be confused with multi-core), so it is natural to assume that this would also extend to Win 7.

Oh well, live and learn. Plus as someone mentioned before, it is possible to upgrade from Home to Professional/Ultimate.
 
Additional requirements to use certain features

*

TV tuner card required for TV functionality (compatible remote control optional)
*

Windows Tablet and Touch Technology requires a Tablet PC or a touch screen

Actual requirements and product functionality may vary based on your system configuration. Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor can help you determine which features and edition of Windows Vista will run on your computer.

While all editions of Windows Vista can support multiple core CPUs, only Windows Vista Business, Ultimate, and Enterprise can support dual processors.
Click to expand...

But this says Windows Vista, not windows 7..
 
MrGuvernment said:
But this says Windows Vista, not windows 7..
Click to expand...
It does, but that goes back to a point I made, and one that JaguarSKX makes as well. If this was true in XP Home Edition and Vista's Home Editions....wouldn't it be logical to assume that it would be true in Windows 7's Home Editions? Logically speaking, multi-socketed systems are less common now then they were when Vista was released and definitely since XP was released. If you consider the patterns of the Home Editions, and the trends of the industry, it would have been common sense to assume Windows 7 Home Edition wouldn't support it.
 
DeaconFrost said:
It does, but that goes back to a point I made, and one that JaguarSKX makes as well. If this was true in XP Home Edition and Vista's Home Editions....wouldn't it be logical to assume that it would be true in Windows 7's Home Editions? Logically speaking, multi-socketed systems are less common now then they were when Vista was released and definitely since XP was released. If you consider the patterns of the Home Editions, and the trends of the industry, it would have been common sense to assume Windows 7 Home Edition wouldn't support it.
Click to expand...

Yea but this is Home Premium, not Home.
 
DeaconFrost said:
If this was true in XP Home Edition and Vista's Home Editions....wouldn't it be logical to assume that it would be true in Windows 7's Home Editions?
Click to expand...
It would be a logical assumption, yes, but not necessarily an accurate assumption.

MrGuvernment said:
It is still 'home', again how many home users do you know got dual socket boards?
Click to expand...
Not a relevant point. The distinction between "Home" and "Pro" is arbitrary. The latter can be used in the home whereas the former could easily be used in professional markets. The distinction, as we all know, is one Microsoft's drawn as a line in the sand, so to speak, without fully documenting where that line is for its customer base. The result is consumer confusion -- where no answers are apparent -- and threads like these.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Windows 98 came with a getting started guide. We won't kill you for asking, but if you do need a user manual for Windows, then you shouldn't be allowed to cop an attitude with others in other threads. ;)
Click to expand...

read before you post:

TOOL1075 said:
I've never actually needed one for Windows, but I would like one.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm really just after an MS-DOS manual equivalent for Windows if there is such a thing... just to have it, I don't know. That's why I asked; I didn't know if one existed. I guess it doesn't.

You ever take a shit, and want to read about kernel modules in the bathroom? I have.
 
ZodaEX said:
Yea but this is Home Premium, not Home.
Click to expand...
Vista was Home Premium, right? I'm getting chewed out for making an assumption based on logic, and the counter argument is that Home Premium should support multiple sockets because of the Premium label? When did common sense leave the forums?
TOOL1075 said:
You ever take a shit, and want to read about kernel modules in the bathroom? I have.
Click to expand...
No, that's when I read my Food Network magazine or my Maximum PC magazine.
TOOL1075 said:
read before you post:
Click to expand...
I do, actually. I usually read things several times over, but that doesn't make the absurdity go away in most cases.
 
Sorry guys, no new updates. I did send an email to customer service and they responded back asking for some more information. Also they sent a response back saying that they had escalated it to the correct people, whoever that may be. I'll let ya'll know if they respond, or don't...

Again, to reiterate to everyone, my complaint is that it isn't documented anywhere, and the windows 7 upgrade advisor didn't state anything about it. Also the EULA states it supports 2 processors, so IDK...
 
DeaconFrost said:
Makes no sense to rehash the same stance they took with XP eight years ago, and Vista three years ago. As others have said, this is nothing new. Would you prefer a marketing ulletin that says...Windows 7: Now with Plug & Play? Yes, I'm over-dramatizing, but still. Home versions of the OSes have always been single socket, even going back to when the 9x and NT kernels were split.

As I said above about multi-core processors becoming prevelant, the availability and desire of home multi-socketed motherboards is nearly non-existent. They only exist in server and workstation form...both of which would logically not be running a home OS.
Click to expand...

That's still no excuse for not at least listing it. It's just text on a page, it's not like they're spending millions of dollars to add on that extra bit of text. Yes, this is common knowledge to you and I and most other forum members, but again that's still not a good excuse.

But whateve, mistakes happen. Yeah the OP probably should have done some more research, but Microsoft should have documented it better as well. Here's to hoping the OP gets reimbursed somehow.
 
Last edited:
You seem to have no problem buying W7 Pro for the machines, but the problem is MS, W7's website, and the upgrade advisor made no mention. After spending so long with tech support with no resoultion, I clearly see where you are coming from. There is no way a consumer can be reasonably expected to draw from previous knowledge on the supported number of CPUs in older OSs to realize that you needed the Pro version. While I already knew that version supported only 1 CPU, I clearly see your issue and you should demand free upgrades, a refund, or some other resolution.

darkmatter08
 
phide said:
It would be a logical assumption, yes, but not necessarily an accurate assumption.


Not a relevant point. The distinction between "Home" and "Pro" is arbitrary. The latter can be used in the home whereas the former could easily be used in professional markets. The distinction, as we all know, is one Microsoft's drawn as a line in the sand, so to speak, without fully documenting where that line is for its customer base. The result is consumer confusion -- where no answers are apparent -- and threads like these.
Click to expand...

For most it is very clear, Pro versions offer things like domain joining capabilities and other "office type' features, unlike home features, to me 'home' is very clear, their features charts are always very clear on what home and other versions can and can not do, they in this case left out dual socket details to be very clear and open... but again since it has been something that goes back to past OS, why do people suddenly think Win7 would be any different, with dual socket systems i am sure less and less likely to be found in a average home users desk.

Sure you could run either in what ever environment you choose, but anyone who has the slightest bit of common sense would think, mmmm Home version is likely for home usage and home type computers, to which i would still say dual socket system's aren't a common thing in normal home environments, and for a normal / average home users to buy a dual socket system, likely puts their computer knowledge above most, thus they likely know the difference between home and professional versions.
And even if that home user got a dual socket system, say, from an OEM, it would of been sold with an OS that can see both sockets.
 
MrGuvernment said:
common sense
Click to expand...

One more time: common sense, common knowledge and wikipedia are not valid forms of documentation. Microsoft failed to document that Windows 7 Home Premium does not support multiple processors. This is 100% on Microsoft, not the user.
 
evilsofa said:
One more time: common sense, common knowledge and wikipedia are not valid forms of documentation. Microsoft failed to document that Windows 7 Home Premium does not support multiple processors. This is 100% on Microsoft, not the user.
Click to expand...

Not only did they not document it, they specifically stated otherwise in the EULA... the governing document over how the software is to be used.
 
evilsofa said:
Microsoft failed to document that Windows 7 Home Premium does not support multiple processors.
Click to expand...
Did they fail to clearly document this...sure.
evilsofa said:
This is 100% on Microsoft, not the user.
Click to expand...
It is 100% their fault it wasn't documented. However, the facts about this support are out there, and someone who's going to be running a multi-socket board at home should definitely be cable of researching this point. Now add in the patterns of previous Home editions, as has been beaten to death here, and you'll see the true picture:

Should Microsoft have clearly defined this...yes. Are they at fault for not doing so...yes. Is it logical to assume that Windows 7 wouldn't support multi-sockets in the Home versions...yes. Should the OP have known better....yes. Was the factual information available by internet search....yes. Should the OP be entitled to a refund....no, but I certainly can't fault the OP for trying...it can't hurt to ask.

The point is, while Microsoft may not have clearly spelled this out, it would be totally illogical to assume this support would be added in to Windows 7's Home editions, after being absent from the previous two OSes. If anyone wanted to know for sure, a few minutes of internet searching would yield your answer. As I said above, I certainly don't blame the OP for trying to get a refind, and it would be nice if Microsoft would honor that request, or grant a free upgrade. It would also be nice if the documentation was updated.
 
Blokhead said:
Sorry guys, no new updates. I did send an email to customer service and they responded back asking for some more information. Also they sent a response back saying that they had escalated it to the correct people, whoever that may be. I'll let ya'll know if they respond, or don't...

Again, to reiterate to everyone, my complaint is that it isn't documented anywhere, and the windows 7 upgrade advisor didn't state anything about it. Also the EULA states it supports 2 processors, so IDK...
Click to expand...

thanks for the update, keep us posted if you get any new info

hopefully the flamers/trolls wont derail this thread too far...
 
So typical. You took the "I don't agree with you, and despite the fact you make a logical point, I'll label you a troll". Nice.
 
MrGuvernment said:
why do people suddenly think Win7 would be any different, with dual socket systems i am sure less and less likely to be found in a average home users desk.
Click to expand...
Once again, these assumptions and likelihoods are irrelevant. It is just as easy to assume that Windows 7 is different as it is to assume that Windows 7 is not. This "common sense dictates" argument isn't meaningful nor is it even valid.
 
. It is just as easy to assume that Windows 7 is different as it is to assume that Windows 7 is not.
Click to expand...
No, it's not, since Win7 is based off the previous codebase. It's not a brand new product, it's an evolution. Less stuff changes than remains the same, as with any new version of a piece of software.
 
Okay, let me get this straight,
so if I have a Q6600 processor,
and i plan on putting windows 7 (64) on it?

will all 4 be running?
 
corry29, just consider the rule of thumb that's been in place since XP was released. Go by the number of sockets....not the number of cores. Your proc is a single proc...one socket on the motherboard...so any version of Windows 7 will use it fully. It doesn't matter how many cores or in the proc....just how many sockets the motherboard has.
 
I decided to compare the relevant EULA sections between XP Home and 7 Home Premium. They definitely do state very different things, clearly there's been a miscommunication between microsoft's software engineers and legal folk.

XP Home Edition Eula said:
1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the Software on a single computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device ("Workstation Computer"). The Software may not be used by more than one processor at any one time on any single Workstation Computer.
Click to expand...

7 Home Premium Eula Section 2.c said:
Licensed Computer. You may use the software on up to two processors on the licensed
computer at one time. Unless otherwise provided in these license terms, you may not use the software on any other computer.
Click to expand...
 
The EULA isn't a listing of technical features. Theoretically, if that version of Windows ran on two processors simultaneously, the license would let you as per my reading. That doesn't mean that version of Windows does.
 
^^ wow good find, so then yes, i agree this is an MS issue, past OS's or not, the EULA clearly states the wrong information.

Now, question

Unless otherwise provided in these license terms,
Click to expand...

Is the EULA for home / basic different ?
 
Arainach said:
The EULA isn't a listing of technical features. Theoretically, if that version of Windows ran on two processors simultaneously, the license would let you as per my reading. That doesn't mean that version of Windows does.
Click to expand...

It's a list of what you may or may not do with the software. If it say you can run it on two processors, then the software should not prevent you from doing so. There is no reason other than licensing and configuration settings that prevents Windows Home from doing anything Windows Professional does.

MrGuvernment said:
^^ wow good find, so then yes, i agree this is an MS issue, past OS's or not, the EULA clearly states the wrong information.
Click to expand...

he didn't find it. It was brought up more than two weeks ago in this very thread.

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?p=1034829157&highlight=EULA#post1034829157

Is the EULA for home / basic different ?
Click to expand...

Home basic has the same statement.
 
Last edited:
I was looking at the windows family pack.

I ended up putting Ultimate on all of the rigs instead, for a much cheaper price...

Since the rig my mother uses is my old Dual-Xeon rig and the rig my father uses is my old Dual-AthlonMP rig, I'd say I made the right choice.
 
GotNoRice said:
I was looking at the windows family pack.

I ended up putting Ultimate on all of the rigs instead, for a much cheaper price...

Since the rig my mother uses is my old Dual-Xeon rig and the rig my father uses is my old Dual-AthlonMP rig, I'd say I made the right choice.
Click to expand...

How did you get it for much cheaper? W7FP is $150, Ultimate OEM x 3 is $520
 
Arainach said:
The EULA isn't a listing of technical features. Theoretically, if that version of Windows ran on two processors simultaneously, the license would let you as per my reading. That doesn't mean that version of Windows does.
Click to expand...
So now it's acceptable that the EULA -- a Microsoft-published document -- states that users are entitled to use Home Premium in a way that's not even technically possible. Interesting.
 
Jon55 said:
We do, just not when the person posting actually believes it.
Click to expand...
phide said:
No, I wouldn't say that. When Microsoft calls something an "operating system" I do the same. When Apple calls something an "operating system" I do the same. When Microsoft calls something a "service pack" I do the same. That's what makes the most sense to me. People who do otherwise have clear agendas in doing so.
Click to expand...
phide said:
I call Windows 7 whatever Microsoft calls Windows 7, because they're the ones who made it. Ditto for Snow Leopard and Apple. They're both new OS versions. Neither are service packs.
Click to expand...
Open mouth. Insert foot.

If I thought Windows 7 was a service pack, I wouldn't have bought it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top