Upgrading to 8 from OEM 7

Will upgrading my Windows 7 OEM license to Windows 8 grant me a retail license? I want to upgrade my motherboard, but currently can't because OEM licenses are tied to the first motherboard it is installed on and I don't have enough money to buy another Windows license.
26 answers Last reply
More about upgrading
  1. ninjarubberduck said:
    Will upgrading my Windows 7 OEM license to Windows 8 grant me a retail license? I want to upgrade my motherboard, but currently can't because OEM licenses are tied to the first motherboard it is installed on and I don't have enough money to buy another Windows license.

    You have to buy a retail copy of Windows 8. There's no way around it.

    My advice to you: avoid Windows 8 altogether. It's a tablet OS forced onto a desktop computer. I have been an IT professional for almost 20 years and I find it difficult to use. I can't even imagine how the average user will cope with it.
  2. Plus 1 ^
  3. Hi :)

    PLUS 2 ^

    All the best Brett :)
  4. PLUS 3!! ^ :P
  5. Plus 4 ^
  6. Yep, it would be nice if they had an upgrade option for oem to retail. Luckily (or not) I'm still running XP so I'll probably bite. If you can score a dirt cheap retail xp you might be good to go but these aren't so common now (and it would have to be dirt cheap to make a saving!)

    Once it is on full release the price of Windows 7 will probably go through the roof...
  7. ironically, I find win8 to be wonderful to use (I am not an IT pro, just a refurbisher and hardware junkie). What's more, my wife (who is an 'average' PC user) absolutely loves win8 even more than I do.

    I am not trying to discount the win8 nay-sayers because it is obviously not for everyone. But I still think you should give it a go while it is free.

    Also, while OEM software is tied to the mobo, you can replace the mobo in the event of hardware failure to fix your machine. Too many hardware changes and MS will throw a fit, but generally speaking they have been pretty lenient on enforcing their rules... there is just no 'guarantee' that you can transfer your license to a new board.
    My own copy of win7 OEM has been on 3 motherboards (first one failed, 2nd was upgraded but I reused most of the rest of the PC), however they seem to treat win7OEM that you buy at places like newegg, and win7OEM that comes tied with a Dell or HP differently.
    At any rate, it would not make your copy Retail so that you could simply put it on a different machine, but if your current machine just needs a little upgrade, or a repair, it can be an option.

    As womble mentioned, when win8 is released there will be no more win7 other than what is in warehouse. It will be like when win98se got moved 'up' to winME; 98 was much more desirable for most systems (ME genuinely didn't work for 2 years), and what copies of 98 you could find in the wild jumped from $120 to $200+, so if you want a copy of win7 you had better make it affordable before the end of October.
  8. Plus^5

    Hardcore users hate it while web surfers love it.

    Windows 7 was great right out of the gate, but there were millions of users that wanted to downgraade to xp, it will be even worse with people wanting to downgrade to windows 7.

    MS knows it is a flop for desktop thats why for the first time in history they are offering it so cheap. They want to try to be like Apple and turn more into a hardware company. Thats why they are designing surface and special mouse/keyboard for windows 8.
  9. daship said:

    Hardcore users hate it while web surfers love it.

    Windows 7 was great right out of the gate, but there were millions of users that wanted to downgraade to xp, it will be even worse with people wanting to downgrade to windows 7.

    MS knows it is a flop for desktop thats why for the first time in history they are offering it so cheap. They want to try to be like Apple and turn more into a hardware company. Thats why they are designing surface and special mouse/keyboard for windows 8.

    The reason for the cheap upgrade is because MS use to be the big boy on the block, and Apple is now the top dog (corporately speaking). While MS has not lost much desktop share over the years, they are beginning to loose laptop share, and have not gotten a hold in the mobile segment yet. The win8 core OS is a platform designed around database handling and moving away from a single device user to a many-device user. The hope is not that win8 sells for desktops (because you are right in that it won't, no matter how much I personally like it... and I am a power user).

    The real issue is that kids today have an iPad or android tablet. Business users have apple phones, while consumers and geeks have andorid phones. Businesses have a super high demand for dumb devices that are easily manageable (something I was really surprised that the iPad does very well, I now understand why businesses want to move to them) and win7 does not have a clear option for this.

    Windows (in whatever form) will always be king of the desktop platform, the problem is that people are using their desktops less and less. traditional PCs are moving to a more media server or content creation role, while "Personal Devices" like TVs, Consoles, laptops, tablets, and phones (especially when paired with a dock) are replacing PCs left and right for day-to-day use. Other than the xBox MS does not have a product that is convincing for these new "Personal Devices" and win8 is their hope to get into these markets.

    If they do not make a cheap desktop software the integrates with these new popular personal devices then people will move to mac OSx, or a new (free) Android OS for the desktop (if they can ever get it off the ground). It is a platform war, and while many dislike the new interface, it is absolutely necessary if MS hopes to be in existence for anything other than a pattent leasing and web services company over the next 10 years.
  10. Well they are used to having Windows and Office as pretty much cash cows since the 90s and pricing wise they have milked it for all it is worth. They had the NT kernel and the 95 kernel and just fixed and added bits on year after year, I don't think half of those upgrades really warranted full product pricing. Windows 2000/XP was a reasonable buy as it consolidated things nicely and ditched some rubbish.

    Vista brought about a few changes and I'll always regard 7 as just a point update to fix a few things.

    Trouble is 7 is a pretty good product that everyone is mostly happy with and they are faced with what the next big earner will be and I guess they are thinking apps, apps, apps! I've got no problem with the tile screen on a portable touch device but it isn't really suited to the desktop paradigm. I imagine that even if you had a touch enabled desktop screen you'd soon only be using it for the odd program launch or media button as it would become uncomfortable!

    The constant flipping to the new start menu is a bit jarring and I think they have a little way to go regarding intuitiveness. Really if I am having to struggle to close a program which I did at first, then perhaps the new cool looking interface isn't doing everything as well as it should.

    I've read here and there that under the hood there have been some improvements to speed things up, which is welcome. I just think the touch/tile i/f should be automatic on slates and an option on the desktop.

    Got not problem with them adding something new into the mix to broaden the appeal and expand the usefulness. Just that the desktop seems a bit of a second class citizen in Windows 8, that is by Microsoft design and you can see the direction they are steering.
  11. Other then the improved performance i too constantly have trouble shutting off programs. In fact i had to use Task Manager to manually shut off programs. The task manager is the only thing i really love, i'm going to tinker with that a little more. After using my ancient computer with XP even when i had trouble running Internet Explorer and WMP, WMP was unaffected by IE (which i have an inefficient amount of RAM & CPU usage) in which i had many instability issues with Windows 7 (with the similar usage/lack of resources on a newer machine). I finally fixed that problem by switching to Opera which is more moderate in resources (i had to tweak the priorities a bit still) but it shows that XP can handle multitasking better then Windows 7, visually Win7 looks better even with low resources but XP gets the job done more efficiently.

    Anyway i haven't tested Windows 8 on how it would cope on low resources but my guess is it most likely functions like Windows 7.

    I don't think that desktops are dying, while more people (most of them younger) are going towards laptops, for me personally laptops are designed for portable use. If i'm going somewhere or traveling allot then laptops are good. I don't travel much so my primary PC is the desktop. I haven't even gotten a tablet yet. At this point i'll wait, it'll be useful in business or development but until then i'm going to stick with the desktop. I don't think it will die considering they are the most reliable. Laptop motherboards tend to die out quicker then desktops and you won't have to upgrade much on a desktop, keep the existing case, keyboard, mouse, monitor, ect... while it is more difficult with a laptop or even a tablet.

    Anyway i'm heading towards Linux (would function well on my 12 yr old PC) eventually may not use Windows if Win8 is the direction Microsoft is taking.
  12. plus 6 ^

    tried a windows 8 preview couple months back, didn't dislike the metro tilespace but hated how i always got kicked back into it. i'd compare it to as if XP always started up media center on you everytime you hit "start" or closed a window, quite annoying.

    if MS doesn't put the start button back and give me the option of turning metro off (in other words let me customize my computer to function how i want it to) i can foresee myself primarily using linux or maybe even apple in few years.
    (please don't make me use apple, MS, please!)
  13. MidnightDistort said:

    Anyway i haven't tested Windows 8 on how it would cope on low resources but my guess is it most likely functions like Windows 7.

    Win8 CP on my old Atom netbook ran beautifully (MUCH faster than win7 ever did), however, the win8 RTM is very ram heavy, and even the 32bit version ran like a dog until I slapped in a 2GB stick of ram. However, on 2GB of ram it makes win7 feel very slow, and I would dare say that it runs a little bit faster than win8 CP did.
    So for CPU, GPU, and HDD usage I would call win8 a huge improvement, but if you are running anything less than 1GB of ram then you are hosed.

    Here is the difference of usage:
    Netbook: Win8 CP 32bit idled at ~250MB of ram usage
    Netbook: Win8 RTM (32 and 64bit) idle at ~750MB

    Desktop: Win8 CP 64bit idle at ~2GB
    Desktop: Win8 RTM 64bit idle at ~3.5GB, and then fills up the rest of my 16GB with standby files

    Long story short: win8 will run very well on limited hardware provided you have 2GB of ram. But it will leverage all of your ram available with precaching, so the more ram you throw at it the better.
  14. 2 of my machines will most likely handle Win8, the laptop only has 1GB and it's fairly slow with Win7 (32 bit). Lack of RAM has been one of my problems with older systems so i have 8GB (upgradable to 16GB) on my newest system so i'm set for quite awhile with that.

    So are they using a similar setup with Win8 as they did with Vista for RAM? I have a WD 500GB Caviar Black which is the only thing slowing my system down a little (just during the loading times) it is a Sata III (hooked up to Sata III connection) but i'm guessing that since it's a 64 bit system it might be the cause. I was supposed to benchmark the drive but i never did, once i do i'll be able to find out whether it's the drive or that the loading times are normal, and it loads about the same as my 32 bit system.

    Performance was the idea with my 64 bit system, eventually i will get an SSD for it but for now the HDD works well enough and it's great with any game. Considering gaming overall and load times, maybe Win8 would be ideal. Anyway i would still prefer upgrading my GPU and HDD to SSD before even thinking about whether to get Win8.
  15. HDDs (and even SSDs) are always without question the slowest part of your core system. Even fast HDDs only hit a maximum of ~200MB/s... and even then that is at the beginning of the drive, doing a sequential read, which is not something you would see often in everyday life. HDDs also have a very long seek speed (access time) of 6-12ms. This means that when doing non-sequential workloads (which is just about everything other than playing back a video file) it takes 6-12ms to move from one task to the next, and that just kills performance, especially with tasks that read from a multitude of files (like an OS or video game). A modern typical HDD will have a max read speed of 160MB/s, minimum of ~90MB/s, and average of ~120MB/s, with a seek time of 8ms (if older then expect worse on throughput, but a similar seek time)

    SATA1/2/3 dictates how quickly data transfers between the disc and the motherboard. In effect it defines the maximum throughput of a drive, but has absolutely no bearing on the actual performance of the drive itself. In reality you could plug even an average SATA3 HDD into a SATA1 port and never see a difference in performance on the drive (SATA1 has a throughput of ~150MB/s). Drive manufacturers move to the new standards mostly for the sake of marketing, but also because the controllers for each successive generation are made with a smaller die size which makes them easier to produce in bulk, and uses a little less power. But as far as the end-user is concerned there is no real advantage to a HDD being on any particular SATA standard (except high performance HDDs which really should be a minimum of SATA2).

    Compare that to SSDs. A slow budget-oriented SSD has an expected throughput maximum of ~320MB/s, and a minimum of ~120B/s, while high end units have a max that saturates the SATA3 standard at ~550MB/s, and a minimum somewhere near 250MB/s. There is no real 'average' speed as SSDs always read as fast as possible, and the limit of their min and max is based on the type of file being read; but for the same reason SSDs do not slow down as the drive fills up, so you get that same consistent performance throughout the entire drive. While that throughput is a clear step forward over HDDs, the real magic is that the seek time is typically near .2ms on even a cheap SSD (.05 on high end units). This means that there is no waiting time when moving between several files, which makes SSDs amazing for system drives where a bunch of files need to be accessed in short succession.

    HDD speed has very little to do with your OS. The OS bit rating has to do with 3 things:
    1) how much system memory can be addressed by the system (32bit hits a max of 4GB... really ~3.5 but MS has cheated with vista 32bit and everything after)
    2) how wide or complex the commands can be for a program, and in some cases it can be a cheater way to push 2 commands into the CPU at once. However, due to the nature of x86 there is really very little advantage in processing speed between a 32bit and 64bit OS. There is a little, but not much.
    3) how accurately math can be done before having to round a number. If you have 32 spots to put numbers then you can get a pretty accurate answer, but if you have 64 spots to put numbers then you can get a much more accurate answer. Not so useful for everyday math, but extremely useful when dealing with complex math relating to really long numbers such as PI, natural log, repeating decimals, and other such things.
    None of these things has anything to do with how fast your HDD can push out data.
  16. Had i known SSD's are so much better then hard drives i would have gotten one but all things considered i know a bit more about HDD's then SSD's. I was either reading up on my motherboard specs/manual or the SATA III Hard Drives so i was led to believe that it would actually make an improvement.. otherwise i would have just used an extra HDD i had. But the HDD is 500GB so it was worth the $110! :)

    So going from 32 bit to 64 bit, which i did read somewhere that 64 bit is more accurate. 64 bit does factor in RAM usage, which about doubles the usage. 64 bit also increases the ability to use higher then 4GB of RAM and requires more disk space. So how does the accuracy work with programs that are 64 bit (compared to 32 bit) like Internet Explorer and other programs? Would it prevent errors?
  17. Accuracy is for programs that do math, like Adobe Premiere, most Cad programs, and other professional level tools and programs. 64bit does not change the 'accuracy' of a command, such as copy, paste, move a file, change a text string, etc. It also does not help with programs that are designed for 32bit use, such as every game ever made (except ironically minecraft which can run in 64bit java... which is kinda pointless), office, and even most picture and audio editing software.

    64bit IE is kinda a moot point. HTML is a 32bit language, as are most APIs. As far as I understand, the 64bit IE just allows for the use of 64bit extensions like the 64bit version of Java (if you downloaded that version specifically).

    64bit merely does the 3 things listed. Other than the ability to address more system memory, there is really no real need for it for the 'average' user. It does not prevent errors, it does not make things necessarially faster, and it does not do the dishes. It does allow for the CPU to deal with larger blocks of numbers, but that is really it./

    Dont worry about not jumping on the SSD train yet, the prices are droping like a rock still, and we are expecting 1TB mainstream drives before the end of the year, and 2TB drives some time next year. So the longer you wait, the bigger and more stable the drives are getting. As they are allready beginning to tap out the interface speeds they are not really getting much quicker anymore, but the other improvements will help more for long-term use. Personally I jumped on the SSD wagon because it is my hobby (recently installed my 2nd SSD as a Raid0 setup... stupid fast!), but I am still hesitant to suggest affordable drives to friends and family. They are much more reliable than they were, but I am still not trusting my SSD drives with any information that I cannot replace.
    It is one thing to try something when you know how (or want to learn how) to fix it, and quite another thing to jump on something that can cause you headaches a year or two down the road.
  18. ^+1000,000,000
  19. CaedenV said:
    t does not prevent errors, it does not make things necessarially faster, and it does not do the dishes. It does allow for the CPU to deal with larger blocks of numbers, but that is really it./

    Unless it's used as a Terminator :p (even though the Terminator probably would require a higher bit system), anyway that is good to know, i was curious on what makes the difference between 32 & 64bit. Thanks for that info! :) Anyway i already did built my system as 64-bit & the i7 is just phenomenal. Blazing fast but it still won't do my dishes! lol

    I did get it for HD video editing and it while i haven't started yet it's there when i need it, it does run games perfectly well although they say the i5 is better for gaming but is that mostly for budgetwise? I did read somewhere that the i7 doesn't enhance the gaming quality, but anyway my system runs perfect.

    I don't plan on upgrading to an SSD now since i have basically spent money on an emergency.. :??: so for now im sticking with the hard drive. It won't get the max efficiency in my other systems anyways. Thanks again for all your info! :)

    thank god for xbox balmer is thinking now
  21. i5 is not 'better' for games... it is simply the same. Games do not take advantage of hyperthreading, and the #1 difference between the i5 and i7 is that HT technology. So if just gaming there is just a matter of 1/2 the CPU is ignored, so why purchase it? Also, because the i5 is a less complicated and cooler CPU it OCs better, so gamers like it for that as well.

    My rig is for video editing, and I have to say the i7 is great for editing HD content (and perhaps a bit overkill for the projects I do). When I first put it together though I could only push the CPU to ~40% usage because my HDDs were bottlenecking the system. When I did a RAID1 on the 1TB drives it got the CPU to push up to ~65%, and most recently I upgraded to a RAID0 of SSDs for the system drives, and with my initial testing of editing from that it looks like it soundly puts the bottleneck back on the CPU (1GB/s throughput :D gotta love it!), but I have not played with it much as it has only been up for a few days and I have been busy breaking my house and working at my real job.
    Next upgrade for me will be moving up to faster and larger ram, followed by a better case, followed by a 4 drive RAID5 of 3TB drives to replace my aging 1TB drives... I think I will finally be done at that point... but who knows what cool toys will be out then! lol

    Anywho, sorry to hear about the emergency, but as I said, the hardware is only getting better and cheaper with time. Once you get your pennies together you will be able to afford a much better drive system than what is available now.
  22. Well if anything the i7 is excellent with power management. Every system that i have owned generally uses around 50% avg CPU usage but Intel did wonders with this system. If i had to measure the wattage output while gaming i wonder if it would be less then my other systems.

    The i7 is a bit overkill but, i bought it with peace of mind that it would be great for video editing, gaming and overall efficiency. An i3 is great for movie watching and internet browsing but ultimately its what you want to do with your system, how long you plan on keeping it (nothing is future proof) but if i had still had my single core 2.4GHz '03 laptop it would still be in use today. The other thing is i multitask like crazy on my PC's and while my '08 PC (with comparable specs to my dead laptop as a cheap replacement) can multitask a little (it's still a single core) but i can't listen to music while watching youtube videos (yeah, lol multitasking) but the i7 does this flawlessly. All my other systems bottleneck & tend to be sluggish or even unstable, but this is mostly due to the age of the system, which i'd rather have a system that is an overkill (for a decent price anyway) that has the potential of lasting 10+ years instead of a system that will bottleneck within 4 years. I'm not concerned with getting the latest and greatest just somethng that will get me by for many years. And despite i enjoy games if my system won't be able to run it i'll simply wait until the system can no longer handle it's current functions including the latest OS's, even then i'm learning more with Linux.

    New hardware is always on the horizon (a bit slower breakthroughs since the economy is at a crawl), in fact after i built my system a cool looking bios came out.. i wished i had waited for that but i'm more familiar with the traditional one and my system is perfect for now anyway. Got an excellent case with enough hard drives bays, plenty of fans to keep the system cool i didn't even have to buy a system fan & so far the stock CPU fan works fine & it has a fairly good mesh to help block dust.

    One thing i do need to get is another hard drive to have all my movies/tv shows/music backed up to (it's a pain to reupload all my stuff back on there). My backup drive is only 120GB external & it's fairly old, time for a new one with a much larger capacity! But for now i keep my newest rig limited to gaming which isn't often and i resurrected my 12 yr old PC to browse the internet/music listening while my ''08 i watch my vids on my "40 Sony HDTV and on occasion since my ancient PC struggles even with internet usage sometimes if i need a quick way of using the internet i'll use my '08 PC which actually is a bit faster since i don't have the music playing in the background! :)

    Yeah unfortunately my cat wasn't feeling well, found out she swalled something (like a rubber foot from a furnature item) from getting an Xray & now she just had surgery.. costing me upwards of $1,000 or more.. it was bad. Income and job hunting are another story which is not good either. But eventually life will find a way.
  23. $1000? time for a new cat :P
    Actually I'm not that cruel. I've got 2 cats, and as much as I hate to admit it I'm going to be pretty sad when the older one dies. I'm more of a dog person myself, but the wife likes cats... so we have cats, and I have learned to adjust.
  24. How about downgrading?
    If I have an W7 OEM license and I buy the upgrade to W8 can I legally revert back to W7 (on the same PC) if I don`t like W8 (and uninstall it)?
  25. ninjarubberduck said:
    Will upgrading my Windows 7 OEM license to Windows 8 grant me a retail license? I want to upgrade my motherboard, but currently can't because OEM licenses are tied to the first motherboard it is installed on and I don't have enough money to buy another Windows license.


    YES, upgrading from any OEM license to a Windows 8 Pro Upgrade from a store or from Microsoft directly WILL make your Windows 8 Pro Upgrade into a full Retail license. The Upgrade EULA supersedes your prior OEM EULA, and your prior OEM restrictions (including the restriction of transferring the OS to another computer you own) is null and void.

    Microsoft Software License Agreement for Windows 8 Pro Upgrade



    EULA (Page 1 and part of Page 2):


    (Excerpt from Page 1 & 2; Emphasis by way of *ALL-CAPS* is mine)


    The software covered by this agreement is an upgrade to your existing operating system software, so the upgrade replaces the original software that you are upgrading. You do not retain any rights to the original software after you have upgraded and you may not continue to use it or transfer it in any way. *THIS AGREEMENT GOVERNS YOUR RIGHTS TO USE THE UPGRADE SOFTWARE AND REPLACES THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SOFTWARE FROM WHICH YOU UPGRADED.* After you complete your upgrade, additional software will be required to playback or record certain types of media, including DVDs.


    *YOU MAY TRANSFER THE SOFTWARE TO ANOTHER COMPUTER THAT BELONGS TO YOU.* You may also transfer the software (together with the license) to a computer owned by someone else if a) you are the first licensed user of the software and b) the new user agrees to the terms of this agreement. To make that transfer, you must transfer the original media, the certificate of authenticity, the product key and the proof of purchase directly to that other person, without retaining any copies of the software. You may use the backup copy we allow you to make or the media that the software came on to transfer the software. *ANYTIME YOU TRANSFER THE SOFTWARE TO A NEW COMPUTER, YOU MUST REMOVE THE SOFTWARE FROM THE PRIOR COMPUTER.* You may not transfer the software to share licenses between computers. You may transfer Get Genuine Windows software, Pro Pack or Media Center Pack software only together with the licensed computer.
  26. Personal note:

    Many people on forums have assumed that the Registry Mod and the Install-Over-Install workarounds for Clean-Bare-Metal install activations are illegit hacks that violates the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade EULA. However, in reading the EULA, two things are obvious: (1) this Retail EULA supersedes the OEM EULA, and (2) the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade is transferable to a new computer/motherboard. Hence, I believe that Microsoft intentionally created a method in which clean-bare-metal installation activation can be achieved using the Windows 8 Pro Upgrade ISO.

    How this method was meant to be accessed is another question: (A) End-user self-service or (B) Remote-assist by Microsoft Customer Service Agent.

    So for the original question, YES, get the Upgrade, and your old OEM becomes Retail.
Ask a new question

Read More

License Windows 7 Windows 8 Motherboards OEM