Windows 10: Is Windows Retail Version Upgrading to Win 10 OEM??

Every source I have heard or read says the license is traded like for like. OEM > OEM, Retail > Retail. After July 29, 2016, the copy of Windows will keep working just as it has before then and be fully supported with no additional fees or subscriptions until Windows 10 is no longer supported.

Here's my slmgr;

 

I think most of those sources quote the same initial source. I've seen other people that have talked with Microsoft which confirm that you go from retail to oem.

I've upgraded from oem. My slmgr says the same. So that doesn't reveal much.

 

As written somewhere else in this topic, I've spoken with Microsoft support and they confirmed to me that if you start from a retail license, Windows 10 is also retail and carries transfer rights.
So even Microsoft employees tell people different stories...

 

I wasn't really surprised when my Windows 7 OEM upgrade came up showing Retail. Think of it this way. OEM means you call the OEM (HP, Dell, ASUS, etc) for tech support. Microsoft won't give you phone support for an OEM version. You upgrade to Windows 10, have issues, who you gonna call? It's not really something the OEM should be responsible for, you took it upon yourself to upgrade to Windows 10. Makes sense to make it a Retail install and have you call Microsoft for any issues as a result of taking them up on their free upgrade offer. IMHO though, it still doesn't mean they can't put extra restrictions on that free upgrade, even if it is Retail.

 

Maybe, but only if these restrictions don't conflict with other information presented to the user.
In the "Get Windows 10" app to reserve your copy of Windows 10, two words are repeated multiple times: 'free' and 'full version of Windows 10'.
During the installation of Windows 10 the user has to agree with the EULA and with the fact that Media Center will be removed. No restrictions are ever mentioned, with the exception of some apps might not be available in all markets and might require special hardware.
So as a Retail license owner, I expect my upgrade to be 'free', to a 'full' version of Windows 10 (read: equal to a retail version bought from a retail store) and with transfer rights (as written in the EULA).

 

The upgrade is both free and a full edition. The EULA doesn't explicitly say the "free" upgrade is transferable. They only write that the free upgrade is tied to the machine that you upgrade.

The write "stay on like-to-like editions of Windows". That is also true. You go from home to home, and from pro to pro...

 

So can you post the text you used for your case so we can follow suit? This is the MAIN reason I will not upgrade to Win10 now because I know I will change MB in the future and will not pay $200 to do so.

 

Just curious.... can you explain what you are GAINING by not upgrading? Let's say you currently have Windows 7 retail license at the moment and won't upgrade to Windows 10. And in 1 1/2 years from now you upgrade motherboard. What will be your choices? Install the Windows 7 retail version or pay $199 for Windows 10.

or you upgrade your Windows 7 retail version to Windows 10 now for free. In 1 1/2 years you upgrade motherboard. Now what choices do you have? Install the Windows 7 retail version or pay $199 for Windows 10 OR quite possibly you can call Microsoft as a Windows 10 user - having previously upgraded from a Windows 7 retail version, explain to them that you have a new motherboard in a box and you would like them to provide you with a method to carry the Windows 10 over to the new motherboard since it was a retail Windows 7 upgrade and they might just give you a Windows 10 product key.

Seems to me like you only lose by waiting to upgrade for free and gain nothing by waiting.

 

The email that got their full attention I quoted in full. See post #1 of this thread. That email got passed internally through Microsoft until it got to a senior engineer at Global Escalation @ Microsoft HQ.

 

If applicable law dictates the outcome then of course it is a legal precedent. Microsoft can no longer argue with anybody who puts forward the same argument referencing the same law. What's good for one...

 

Not really. Basically Microsoft settled out of court with him. That does not set legal precedent. The next person who writes to them, Microsoft might answer them with, "Well then sue us." If the next person takes them to court, the court may decide on the side of Microsoft and THAT would be the legal precedent.

 

In which case there would be a lot of people sueing Microsoft. The fact of the matter remains they've taken away the privelege of a lot of peoples' retail operating systems with what is tantamount to false advertising. Anybody who could present these facts in a court of law would win hands down, that would be a legal precedent.

 

Well if Dell replaces the motherboard they take care of the activation. If you replace the motherboard with the same motherboard and processor it's the same PC. You can replace a mobo that breaks with the same the problem is if you upgrade to another motherboard.

 

What NavyLCDR said above. ie A precedent can only by set by the justice system as this type of legal argument does not involve common law.

Also, please be aware of the following:

and

yours faithfully,
John Connor

 

I definitely do not agree that this would an 'open and shut' case. It is about interpretation of the law and there are currently two opposing perspectives on this, both of which have merits. The real problem comes with the wording within the EULA, internal MS policy and the way have publicly described the upgrade. Yes, it could be argued successfully that MS breached the contract and mislead customers. (MS are looking at changing the EULA wording as a result). It could also be argued that customers have been mislead. However, MS could be successful in arguing the exact opposite as the upgrade is a promotional and should therefore be considered a trial downloadable product and cannot be considered a standalone (retail) licensed product as described within the EULA. Both are strong legal arguments.