Microsoft explains Windows 10 upgrade for non-genuine users

[Saracen]

I won't get involved in any possible arguments about whether it's right or wrong, because it's something I've been through a few times already on forums over the years and I don't really have the energy for it anymore. But, I think that telling me I'm not allowed to upgrade my computer because I happened to have paid for a bit of software is ridiculous, and I can't respect that rule.

I do agree that they seem lenient towards individual users, as you guys say. It would be a bad move for them to do that differently. I'm not keen on buying MS software as it is. I don't like the company. But I don't like to pirate anything, so I buy it because I need to use Windows, for now at least. If they decided to deactivate my licence because I installed some new hardware, I'm not sure I'd bother buying Windows from them again, and I imagine a whole bunch of others would do the same..

It's not that you can't upgrade your computer. It's that you can't (legally) transfer the licence to a different computer.

It's also a commonplace principle.

Consider airfares.

You want to fly to the States. You can get a trip from, say, Heathrow to New York JFK, on a particular day, on a specified airline and flight number, and in a specific seat, and pay vastly different prices accodding to ticket terms. If you bought an 'open' return, you could vary the flight details, date etc, if your needs changed after booking. But it might be three or four timss the price of a heavily discounted fare, which would not alliw any changes at all. You paid, and paid heavily, for the ability to change dates. Just as you pay, or not, for a licence that allows you to transfer software from machine A to B, to C, to ...... Z, at will, provided you removed it from the machine you transferred from.

OEM licence doesn't all for transfers. Retail does. It's your choice which you pay for. You just can't expect to pay an ultra-cheap SuperApex fare, and get fully variable "open ticket" versatility.

[ZaO]

It's not that you can't upgrade your computer. It's that you can't (legally) transfer the licence to a different computer.

It's also a commonplace principle.

Consider airfares.

You want to fly to the States. You can get a trip from, say, Heathrow to New York JFK, on a particular day, on a specified airline and flight number, and in a specific seat, and pay vastly different prices accodding to ticket terms. If you bought an 'open' return, you could vary the flight details, date etc, if your needs changed after booking. But it might be three or four timss the price of a heavily discounted fare, which would not alliw any changes at all. You paid, and paid heavily, for the ability to change dates. Just as you pay, or not, for a licence that allows you to transfer software from machine A to B, to C, to ...... Z, at will, provided you removed it from the machine you transferred from.

OEM licence doesn't all for transfers. Retail does. It's your choice which you pay for. You just can't expect to pay an ultra-cheap SuperApex fare, and get fully variable "open ticket" versatility.

The airfare comparison doesn't really cut it for me There's a whole bunch of variables, complications and reasons for those situations, and I find it way easier to understand and accept. With an operating system, I don't see how it has any negative affect on MS what so ever if I decide to upgrade my computer, or even just transfer the OS to a completely different computer, which is the same as upgrading my computer anyway, depending on how much I upgrade in one hit. I could upgrade the motherboard one month, the cpu the next, then the ram the next etc.. What difference does that really make? I still have one licence to an OS which is only being used on one machine.

I find it a bit like those download films you can buy, where it is only allowed to be played on Windows media player on the original system it was first played on. It's just ridiculous, trying to have way too much control over the end user. I believe they do this to limit you so bad, that you have to then go and buy another copy of something you already paid for, just because they decide you can only use it on the first device, which is completely unreasonable imo.

That said, I do understand that the OEM licence is cheaper and won't come with the same terms because of that. But OEM products are really for system builders who don't require the same support in their product. You pay less for that reason, as you are prepared to be your own tech support, only using the warranty service when there is a hard fault. And again, upgrading your computer is the same difference as transfering to a completely new one it seems. I just find that unreasonable.

Anyway, I said I wouldn't get involved with this kind of debate, but here I am dammit.... >_<

[shaithis]

Instead of comparing it to the cost of airfare, compare it to the non-transferable nature of the tickets (flights and in some cases gigs/festivals).

Which is well documented as being a revenue protection scheme and nothing at all to do with security or regulations. The company actually benefits from a change in your circumstances even though it has no actual effect on them.

Just another way to try and extort more money from customers.

[Saracen]

....

Anyway, I said I wouldn't get involved with this kind of debate, but here I am dammit.... >_<

Gotcha.

I understand your PoV, but I see it from the MS perspective, too.

Look at it, though, as (approx) a £140 product that you can buy for £70 (or whatever), provided you accept a couple of limitations .... much like non-open air fares. Not prepared to accept the limirations? "That's perfectly okay, Sir .... that'll be £140 please".

It's like buying the cheap, restricted airline ticket, then moaning when the airline won't let you change flight dates. Generally, when flying for leisure, I book a restricted ticket. When flying for business, I make sure it's open, because plans can change, at virtually zero notice.

IIRC, strictly speaking, end users aren't supposed to be buying OEM versions anyway. They certainly weren't, originally, though these days it's more honoured in the breach than observance. The idea was system-builders sold ready-built systems, OS included, ready installed, and the system builder supplied the support (which, as you said, is the other thing not included in OEM licences).

I guess whether an upgrade is an upgrade or a new machine depends on the extent of the upgrade. If you upgrade case, psu, mobo, processor, ram, gpu and storage subsystem, is it a new machine? IIRC, MS (and others) get round that one by defining what constitutes an alllowable upgrade, or a non-allowable transfer. And you agree to the licence conditions by using the software.

I understand where you're coming from, but on this point, I see it like MS does. If you want to transfer to another machine, buy the full retail version. I did, and for exactly that reason. If you want the cheaper version, it comes with restrictions, like cheap airline tickets. And those restrictions are why it's cheaper. You can't have your cake and eat it ... or not without risking ending up with a "non-genuine" bit of cake.

[ZaO]

Instead of comparing it to the cost of airfare, compare it to the non-transferable nature of the tickets (flights and in some cases gigs/festivals).

Which is well documented as being a revenue protection scheme and nothing at all to do with security or regulations. The company actually benefits from a change in your circumstances even though it has no actual effect on them.

Just another way to try and extort more money from customers.

I agree. They do this to make more sales!

Gotcha.

I understand your PoV, but I see it from the MS perspective, too.

Look at it, though, as (approx) a £140 product that you can buy for £70 (or whatever), provided you accept a couple of limitations .... much like non-open air fares. Not prepared to accept the limirations? "That's perfectly okay, Sir .... that'll be £140 please".

It's like buying the cheap, restricted airline ticket, then moaning when the airline won't let you change flight dates. Generally, when flying for leisure, I book a restricted ticket. When flying for business, I make sure it's open, because plans can change, at virtually zero notice.

IIRC, strictly speaking, end users aren't supposed to be buying OEM versions anyway. They certainly weren't, originally, though these days it's more honoured in the breach than observance. The idea was system-builders sold ready-built systems, OS included, ready installed, and the system builder supplied the support (which, as you said, is the other thing not included in OEM licences).

I guess whether an upgrade is an upgrade or a new machine depends on the extent of the upgrade. If you upgrade case, psu, mobo, processor, ram, gpu and storage subsystem, is it a new machine? IIRC, MS (and others) get round that one by defining what constitutes an alllowable upgrade, or a non-allowable transfer. And you agree to the licence conditions by using the software.

I understand where you're coming from, but on this point, I see it like MS does. If you want to transfer to another machine, buy the full retail version. I did, and for exactly that reason. If you want the cheaper version, it comes with restrictions, like cheap airline tickets. And those restrictions are why it's cheaper. You can't have your cake and eat it ... or not without risking ending up with a "non-genuine" bit of cake.

I get it. It's like, "here's the cost for the version you have freedom with, or you can pay less for a version that has less freedom. Which will it be?". Still, I'm more inclined to just give Microsoft the middle finger

[kalniel]

Instead of comparing it to the cost of airfare, compare it to the non-transferable nature of the tickets (flights and in some cases gigs/festivals).

Which is well documented as being a revenue protection scheme and nothing at all to do with security or regulations. The company actually benefits from a change in your circumstances even though it has no actual effect on them.

Just another way to try and extort more money from customers.

There are usually reasons for a different license scheme costing more or less. In the case of air or train tickets, pre-booked tickets enable them to plan ahead and ensure passenger loads are spread out across services. In the case of warranties it's a hedge against increased returns. In the case of OEM vs retail it's about support - OEM windows is supported by the system builder, retail by MS. There's a genuine saving in cost for MS to provide the OEM version direct, so why shouldn't they pass that saving on to the customer?

OEM versions are of course completely transferable to other people - you just have to make sure you transfer the system they're installed on as well.

[Saracen]

...

I get it. It's like, "here's the cost for the version you have freedom with, or you can pay less for a version that has less freedom. Which will it be?". Still, I'm more inclined to just give Microsoft the middle finger

Well, quite. I'm not exactly MS' s greatest fan these days. I was sufficiently annoyed with their antics over W8 and Metro that I tested out Linux with a view to how practical it is for me to migrate wholesale. My conclusion was that while a couple of necessary uses require Windows, those can be (and are) old non-interneted XP systems, and those will remain XP. All other machines, including Win7 and Win 8, and the applications I use on them, can indeed go Linux, and necessary applications either have Linux versions, or acceptable substitutes.

So, I'm current in wait-mode, watching to see how W10 works out, what the deal is, what happens with licensing, etc, and I'm quite prepared, should need arise, to give MS the finger ENTIRELY, in terms of new purchases.

Clearly, me dumping Windows is not going to cause Redmond Towers too many sleepless nights, but if they don't come up with an offering acceptable to me, dumping future MS investment entirely sure won't cause me any sleepless nights either.

Hence, I'm watching the whole thing unwind with a sort of interest, but Olympian detachment, a bit like watching a spider build a web - fascinating to watch it's machinations, but ultimately, rather irrelevant to me whether it succeeds or not, and what shape/size the web is.

[ZaO]

Well, quite. I'm not exactly MS' s greatest fan these days. I was sufficiently annoyed with their antics over W8 and Metro that I tested out Linux with a view to how practical it is for me to migrate wholesale. My conclusion was that while a couple of necessary uses require Windows, those can be (and are) old non-interneted XP systems, and those will remain XP. All other machines, including Win7 and Win 8, and the applications I use on them, can indeed go Linux, and necessary applications either have Linux versions, or acceptable substitutes.

So, I'm current in wait-mode, watching to see how W10 works out, what the deal is, what happens with licensing, etc, and I'm quite prepared, should need arise, to give MS the finger ENTIRELY, in terms of new purchases.

Clearly, me dumping Windows is not going to cause Redmond Towers too many sleepless nights, but if they don't come up with an offering acceptable to me, dumping future MS investment entirely sure won't cause me any sleepless nights either.

Hence, I'm watching the whole thing unwind with a sort of interest, but Olympian detachment, a bit like watching a spider build a web - fascinating to watch it's machinations, but ultimately, rather irrelevant to me whether it succeeds or not, and what shape/size the web is.

Haha Well I guess whatever machines you have on W7/W8 can upgrade for free. It's nice to have Linux there as an option also! I would go full metal linux if I could. I see it happening one day. But I'm afraid I'm stuck on windows until my most important programs decide Linux is a good idea :/

[Seewhyseeoh]

What about us users stuck with ...Vista.... (genuine copy). What do we get?

[GuidoLS]

What about us users stuck with ...Vista.... (genuine copy). What do we get?

Not to sound too harsh, but you get an OS that goes completely EOL on April 11, 2017.

Not going to pretend to speak for MS, but there has to be a cutoff somewhere. I can see a valid argument for a discounted price, due to the fact that it's still on extended life support, but not free for a product that's been off the market for for 5ish years retail, and 4ish years in its entirety,

[directhex]

http://www.windows.com/windows10upgrade

Looks like it's as some people feared - the upgrade install is free for a year, but after that year, you'll need to pay if you didn't get it already. This seems to include reformats.

" To take advantage of this free offer, you must upgrade to Windows 10 within one year of availability. Once you upgrade, you have Windows 10 for free on that device."

[kalniel]

http://www.windows.com/windows10upgrade

Looks like it's as some people feared - the upgrade install is free for a year, but after that year, you'll need to pay if you didn't get it already. This seems to include reformats.

" To take advantage of this free offer, you must upgrade to Windows 10 within one year of availability. Once you upgrade, you have Windows 10 for free on that device."

Doesn't that suggest that reformats are free because it's the same device?

Essentially that seems to be saying that the free upgrade is only the OEM version, rather than retail.

[shaithis]

Yup, now reported as free for OEM devices that shipped with Windows 7 or above. A far cry from the original reporting and reports of "free upgrades for pirated versions"

The question is, has the way this has been dealt with put people off?