> There's an issue with this question. Consider a company that violates a TOS in its user's eyes, but makes use of a legal loophole to effectively not "violate" the TOS.

So they don't violate TOS according to law. Law isn't always just or fair.

>  Also consider that if they got away with it, it might be because no one noticed.

If nobody noticed, how can you be so sure it happened? Because you think so?

>  Furthermore, if MS is violating the TOS, it may take some time before they don't get away with it, since someone would have to actually sue them.

That's a lot of "if"s. I'd be easier to admit you have no proof or evidence. I'm not judgemental.

> But that's not what we're talking about. I'm just saying that if the TOS has this loophole, MS might very well be giving users W10 instead of W8.

If you spot a possible loophole that might bring you harm in TOS of any software/service, **don't** agree to it, and spread the word of it **using literal quotes, and links to believable materials**. Not speculate on sorry excuse of a technology sub.

> I mean to say that you would be presented with the new TOS. This explanation is just a way to avoid your claim that providing W10 instead of W8 would give them legal trouble.

I'm not sure I'm following you. You mean that you agreed to W8 TOS, started installation, in the middle of it different TOS got presented to you, you agreed to it too, and then W10 got immediately installed? Or that you agreed to W8 TOS, and in the middle of install TOS got secretly switched to W10? First example is completely legal, because you agreed to both versions, and the second is absolutely illegal (tampering with content of the agreement).

> I have been a software engineer for several years. In this time, I have seen many software legallity violations, as well as outright unexpected, ostensibly unexplainable, and seemingly "impossible" things happen.

What you think of an "impossibility", I learned to treat as "usecase/outcome we hadn't anticipated". Everything can be traced to a certain event/trigger/error, and everything can be if not fixed, then at least bypassed. The only limit is our imagination, and the speed of light.

> It could be a software incompatibility,

Impossible. W8 literally can't mid-install change to 10, because it can't download needed files, because it doesn't have network utilities installed and turned on. I know what I've just written about "impossibility", but think about it - what's the probability that already compiled code spontaneously "mutates", creating network drivers, establishing connection to particular server, downloading, bypassing core system securities, injecting downloaded code into already running system process, and installing totally different product? On the other hand, what's the probability an asshat on the internet jumps on a bandwagon and lies to get internet points?

> or a bug,

That would be one *hell* of a bug. I imagine it'd be a critical exploit that would get patch *hours* after getting detected. That guy that imagined it should contact M$ ASAP. Or a psychiatrist.

> or downright malicious intent.

It's the only plausible explanation, but there are no proofs whatsoever, except one sentence written by a random jackass on the internet. I could write that, let's say... I just installed Logitech Gaming Software suite, and it purposefully broke my G9X's sensor to force me to buy new mouse. Doesn't that sound crazy? But nobody will take is seriously, because atm there's an anti-M$ circlejerk in session, not anti-Logitech. I could think of any bollocks about M$ that puts them in bad light, and I'd get upvoats up my arse if I'd made a comment about it, just because people are retarded and like jumping on bandwagons.

> It could also be a lie, or misconception. I don't know which one it is, so I am not going to assume that either is true.

The evidence (I know that absence of evidence is weak evidence of absence, but it's *something* as opposed to nothing) points towards anticlutch being full of shite, so I'm going to assume it's true, because the other possibilities have no evidence whatsoever to back them.