I would have had no problem with Microsoft if it had warned me, as I was about to load Windows 7 onto my computer, that I would have to pay for it. There was no indication that I would have to pay for it until the upgrade was completed. Indeed, I could have used Windows 7 for 30 days before it expired. Had there been a warning, I would have stopped the upgrade and driven to Office Depot for a $119.99 upgrade.
I could even have restored Windows Vista after the upgrade, if I thought $119.99 was too much for Windows 7. The computer came with a compact disc that contains Vista. The problem is that I had spent several hours performing the upgrade to Windows 7. Was I willing to spend several more hours rolling it back? I wasn't. In short, Microsoft didn't coerce me. It tricked me. Instead of informing me before I got started, it waited until I was done. Most people, at that point, would probably pay the extra $80 for the full version rather than spend several hours rolling things back in order to purchase the upgrade version.
Addendum: It probably says somewhere in the licensing agreement that one can upgrade to only one computer. I'm not complaining about illegality. I'm complaining about a sharp business practice. Microsoft should say something about the limitation during the upgrade process. This is what makes me wonder whether Microsoft is doing this on purpose. Imagine the conversation in the Microsoft headquarters: "Let's not tell people during the upgrade that they're allowed to upgrade to only one computer. They'll find out eventually, but by that time, they will have spent several hours performing the upgrade. Some of them will restore Vista, but others will go ahead and pay for the full version of Windows 7." All I want is forthrightness. Tell me the situation in advance, so I can make an informed decision about what to do. Fine print in a licensing agreement is not enough.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 