What is the difference between Windows 7 Professional 64 bit FQC-04649 and FQC-08289

Hello Scott.

Thank you for visiting Microsoft Community Forum.

As per the description, I understand that you want to know the difference between two Windows 7 Professional 64 bit version manufacturer part numbers FQC-04649 and FQC-08289. You ordered for Windows 7 professional 64-bit FQC-04649 whereas FQC-08289 was actually sent to you.

Both are Windows 7 professional 64 Bit OEM 1-Pack.

For more information on this please contact Microsoft store.

Here is the link for Microsoft Store.

Microsoft Software Assurance Contact Information

http://support.microsoft.com/gp/saphone?wa=wsignin1.0

Hope this information is helpful, feel free to write us back for any further assistance, we’ll be glad to assist you.

Hello M. Manohar,

I appreciate the response. 

However, it does not tell me anything that I did not already know.  The FQC numbers, if different, mean there is something different between the two versions.  (For example, a vendor argued with me a while back that FQC-00765 and FQC-04649 were the same Win7 64-bit w SP1 OEM and the only difference was marketing - turns out that was false, as someone informed me here on answers.microsoft.com - the 00765 version did not contain SP1). 

So there is something different between FQC-04649 and FQC-08289, and I know licensing is part of that difference.  I do not know if there is content difference as well.  The link you provided is not helpful.  I have talked with people at the Microsoft store, no one knows anything about the FQC numbers, they have forwarded me to 'specialists' and they do not know anything.  One 'specialist' said he would have some documents e-mailed to me that would explain it, but I never received them - and since I was forwarded to the specialist and he would not give out his phone number, there was no way to call that particular person back.  He was the only 'specialist' I talked with who seemed to know anything.  The only place it appeared I might get information on the Microsoft website required me to join and be an enterprise member (or some such thing) before I could see the (relevant?) webpages. 

Here is the link that refers to the Windows OEM Part Number LIst

http://www.microsoft.com/OEM/en/salesmarketing/Pages/oem-parts-numbers.aspx#fbid=T7svRZcqH1l

And here is what one gets if they click on that link:

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/community/mpn/Pages/enroll.aspx#fbid=T7svRZcqH1l

as you can see, one has to sign up to be in the Microsoft Partner Network to see what the part numbers are.

So I resort to this forum to get information. 

I have had great responses overall.

     SD.

No need for a response.  I returned the item, so FQC-08289 is no longer a question.

Sheyenne Dreamer may no longer care about this issue, but there are plenty of other people who will be faced with this puzzle. The waters have now been muddied further by SD's use of a term "LCP" licensing, which means nothing to me, or to Microsoft, or anyone else on the WWW, as far as I can tell -- as regards licensing.

I still wish to find out the difference between FQC-04649 and FQC-08289. Personally I think there should be a special prosecutor to investigate why Microsoft is so coy about, well, everything. There is a crying need for a website that seeks to decipher the tangled web of MS products, codes, keys, licenses, etc. And it is obvious to anyone that there needs to be a MS webpage where one can determine whether a product is properly licensed and if not, WHY NOT? The Genuine Advantage tool is only good for denying you the right to use a product, but still leaves you in the dark about your product's status.

What a mess. . . . How many millions of man-hours have been wasted on similar MS licensing inquiries? How can all this ill will and frustration benefit MS?

Hi Marusho Lilac,

I agree with you.  There are perhaps a dozen (maybe more) FQC numbers for the various versions of Windows 7 that Microsoft has released.  And then for each FQC number, there are the prefixed versions, such as FQC-00765-DL  (where the DL means download version - one gets a link (in an e-mail) to a valid Windows 7 copy, and then also a valid product key). 

One of the problems with Microsoft being so 'coy' about this is that honest people, who want to buy legitimate versions and are not interested in getting a bootleg copy and a pirated product key, and want to make sure they get a version of Windows 7 that is right for them - they are thwarted in their efforts to ensure they have a legitimate copy and thwarted in their efforts to make an informed buy decision. 

Now that Microsoft no longer sells Windows 7 and many vendors (such as newegg.com, the largest computer supply vendor in the US) no longer sell Windows 7, one must trust smaller vendors (some of which have very bad reputations based on reviews I have read), or someone selling a legitimate and unused version on eBay, Amazon, or other website.  Often the eBay sellers (Amazon, etc) do not know much about the product they are selling, so asking them about their 'sale item' is unfruitful.  The eBay, Amazon, etc world - and perhaps also the small vendor world - is truly a caveat emptor - buyer beware - world. 

I eventually found a few vendors that were trustworthy and bought my two copies of Windows 7.  For these, the product keys were valid and I am now up and running.  But it was a lot of work (way more than it should have been) to ensure I was getting a legal copy, a legitimate product key, and a full version of Windows 7 for my systems.

Thanks for following this, SD. I'll give some details of my experience in trying to set up a dual-boot XP/7 system in August 2014, as this may be of value to someoe. I have tried the XP Mode on Windows Professional and find it a very poor substitute for a proper XP installation. I gave up on it because it is poorly documented, little information is available on the web, and driver problems were insurmountable. Finally, it cannot be stopped without rebooting the computer. There are times when XP is badly tangled up in itself when you just want to start over, and it's a big chore in XP Mode. The argument that it can be useful for running ancient software is not enough. I would suggest trying 32-bit Windows 7 for such tasks. I recently installed a 1990 version of PageMaker 5.0 on Windows 7 Starter (a 32-bit OS) without drama, where it would not install at all under Windows 7 64-bit. But, despite the limitations of 32-bit XP, and the fact that I have several Windows 7 and 8.1 machines, I cannot give up Outlook Express. I have Outlook 2013 and simply don't like it. So I wanted a modern computer with USB3 and a fast CPU, but running XP. I built the computer and went seeking a legit copy of XP. I bought one on ebay for $65, purported to be 'OEM' and unused. It was indeed shrink-wrapped, but the key could be read through the shrink wrap so I was skeptical that it was virgin. When I ran the Genuine Advantage Tool it reported that it was a Volume License product, and that it was not valid. What that means one can never know. Calling MS didn't help. I was simply read a script about the advantages of upgrading to Windows 8. But -- and here's the useful bit of my post -- when I followed the link telling me what I could do about my illegal copy of XP, Microsoft offered to sell me a copy of Windows 7 for $149. SO MICROSOFT IS STILL MARKETING WINDOWS 7 AS OF AUGUST 10, 2014. Ever coy though, there was no information about what exactly was being sold -- full or upgrade. If it were a full copy, that would have been a good deal. And how could it be an upgrade copy, since there was no legit version of XP on the machine to upgrade? Why MS doesn't just add a few keystrokes to clarify what they mean is beyond me. Perhaps it is some sort of business model which I'd call the "what's in it for me?" model. I contacted the ebay seller who gave me a second key to try and it worked, this time recording the copy as an 'OEM' licensed copy, which is what I wanted. Then I ordered an OEM copy of W7 Pro 64 bit from Tiger for a net price of $99.17 after a coupon and rebate. Naturally I would have preferred to buy a full copy, with transfer privileges, but couldn't trust MS to sell me that, and no retailer has full copies to sell. I loaded up my XP Pro 32 bit OS and installed the 201 updates. I was no longer able to load Security Essentials, though it continues to run and update fine on my other XP machine. When my OEM W7 Pro 64-bit OS arrives I will have a proper dual-boot machine. I realized also that I have a copy of product FQC-04649, so I will compare the licensing terms with product FQC-08289 when it arrives. If they are different, I will post that here. All I want is what I'm sure others want. I'm willing to pay a fair price for my software but I don't appreciate being put through **** just to do that. With a very little bit of effort MS could document their offerings. Reminds me of the motto of the ladies' clothing store T J Maxx, which is "never the same store twice". MS's endless, mindless and undocumented permutations of their OSes is a huge time-waster for the customers.

May I ask, if you don't mind, where did you manage to buy a legal FULL version of Win 7 w/a legit key?

That is interesting as I was just on the phone w/MANY different people from M$ earlier, who, of course, tried to push Win 8 down my throat, & I was told that Win 7 is no longer available for sale at all for M$ hard copy or digital DL!

I know my post is long, but I did write exactly where I bought my OEM copy. It did install fine despite the most astonishing EULA terms you ever read. I still have no clue where one could buy what you and I would call a full copy of Windows 7. I'd guess they can be had on ebay for about $300. Or you could buy a full copy of Windows 8 Pro with downgrade privileges. In theory when you downgraded to Windows 7 that copy would be fully transferable, unlike the OEM version I bought.

Though I cannot state anything conclusive regarding the LICENSE terms of these two releases, I have FQC-04649 media and the newer FQC-08289 media.

On the inner ring of the DVD, the following numbers are visible:

• FQC-04649 media: X17-58517 (MO4W) 19
• FQC-08289 media: X17-58517 (MO4W) 22

The two media of these two SKUs match perfectly, to the byte, according to ImgBurn ISO compare.

This would mean the only difference is the license terms, so far as I can tell.