Windows 8 gets Personal Use License for anyone building their own PC

http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/windows-8-gets-personal-use-license-for-anyone-building-their-own-pc-20120821/

by ukdm • 14 years ago

96 74 14 years ago

geek.com

rowsdower2• 14 years ago

Interesting. I'm still not going to install it on my gaming machine, though.

UnoriginalGuy• 14 years ago

Mind telling us why?

I haven't read any reviews or stats which suggest it will degragate gaming performance.

phren0logy• 14 years ago

Can't speak for the original commenter, but even if there is no degradation I personally don't see enough advantages to justify upgrading my gaming PC.

rowsdower2• 14 years ago

Sure. I've tested W8 in a VM and had a horrible experience. The OS is optimized for tablets and touch-based devices, not desktops.

Also, Windows 7 is perfectly fine at the moment.

WiseWeasel• 14 years ago

I build my Windows boxes, which I use for gaming and productivity, and I will be skipping Windows 8 because the interface is much, much more poorly designed than Windows 7. The Start screen is a pain, Metro apps are less useful than their non-Metro equivalents on a large monitor, and they spilled ribbon all over my Explorer windows. I'm happy to use Windows 7 until MS comes to their senses and releases Windows 9 Classic Desktop Edition.

efsavage• 14 years ago

At least until the latest DirectX is W8 only...

talmand11• 14 years ago

Doesn't matter, it usually takes quite a while before there's enough justification to update Windows for the latest version DirectX to run whatever game requires it. Right now there's only a handful of games that require Win7 for that version of DirectX, I believe DX11?

laserDinosaur• 14 years ago

I find it terribly ironic that just as Microsoft starts pushing into the pre-set hardware world (phones, tablets, etc.) they only then offer a license for those who are going to build their own PC's - Probably the people least likely to use W8.

S4M• 14 years ago

Exactly that. When I read the title I was wondering "Why would someone who built his own pc use windows?".

GFischer3• 14 years ago

Convenience? Windows-only stuff? I work for a corporation, and use several windows-only programs (example: Genexus).

My favourite PC game is still Windows-only (Magic Online).

I've built my own computers for the last 15 years.

I used to dual-boot Linux, but I found out I never used it.

I (mis)use corporate or partner licenses, or OEM Windows. This new licensing option is very appealing.

grhino• 14 years ago

For games, probably Blizzard games.

talmand11• 14 years ago

Why not? That comment is dangerously close to an elitist attitude. Believe it or not, there are people in this world that actually like Windows for various reasons.

__chrismc• 14 years ago

Speaking for myself - .NET development in Visual Studio.

adolfojp• 14 years ago

Every computer gear-head that I've ever met uses Windows. Tricked out computer rigs are built for the single purpose of gaming. And games are Windows' domain.

Goronmon2• 14 years ago

Why would someone who built their own PC want to use something other that Windows?

First of all, most people building PCs are building them for gaming. So, Windows is really the only choice there.

Secondly, hardware works in Windows. The same can't be said for *nix OS choices. And even if it does function, it doesn't mean it's going to function well.

archangel_one• 14 years ago

I built one two weeks ago which has Windows (and Linux) on it, because one of its main purposes is gaming and I've had enough arsing around with Wine in the past. I sympathise that it's a pretty hard problem they're trying to solve, but I've always had cases where I'd have to resort to Windows and I'm sure I would again.

Also, I have PCSX2 on there. While it's allegedly cross-platform, the last time I tried the Linux version it seemed a long way behind the Windows one, let alone how tricky it was getting the thing to build in a 64-bit Linux environment to begin with.

takluyver• 14 years ago

I wonder if it could also be a rear-guard action. As they focus on 'post-PC' devices, PC enthusiasts might be drawn towards desktop Linux, which is still relatively PC-centred, despite what some people claim. Game shops like Valve are already looking at Linux.

But Microsoft can still make a lot of money from traditional PCs. So if this move delays Linux getting a foothold in that market, it's worth it for them. I guess relatively few people buy the full retail edition to install themselves, so cutting the price for them won't hurt much.

omh• 14 years ago

There has always been some confusion & ambiguity about when/if individuals could purchase "OEM" licensed copies of Microsoft products. Many online shops are happy to sell you the OEM license as long as you purchase some hardware.

I suspect that this new license will come with a change to the OEM license terms to push home PC builders to the new PULSB license, and PULSB will probably cost a little more than OEM.

I wonder which license is suitable if I'm building a PC for my mother?

debacle• 14 years ago

> I wonder which license is suitable if I'm building a PC for my mother?

Probably the GPL. Does she use anything besides a web browser?

GFischer3• 14 years ago

Real case scenario: she might want to use her legacy Scanner, and an old printer, and that chinese gadget her nephew got her for Christmas, with Windows-only drivers.

That's why all of my family members still use Windows (Macs are still several salaries away here in Uruguay, and so is replacing the old stuff).

benblack86• 14 years ago

I never realized there was any difference in licenses and have never had any trouble buying the OEM copy.

jbrowning• 14 years ago

The original article (http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-radically-overhauls-license-a...) seems to suggest that the full-price retail version is gone entirely:

"This last type replaces the outmoded and overpriced full package product and represents a significant and positive change in the way Microsoft licenses Windows."

Has anybody else received similar information?

talmand11• 14 years ago

If that's true then all they did was rename the full retail version and lowered the price.

I disagree with the quote though, no Windows license has been positive for its customers. It's one of the least friendly licenses that I've seen. For instance, attempting to tie the license to the hardware instead of the customer.

dpark3• 14 years ago

There's nothing in the non-OEM EULA that ties the license to the hardware so far as I know.

Edit/Disclosure: I do work for Microsoft, but my comments here by no means represent Microsoft. Also, I'm not a lawyer.

talmand11• 14 years ago

As usual, the SKUs for Windows make very little sense. How are they going to restrict this version to make it less Windows than the full retail version? From the article it appears it will be one machine only. Which would be silly because that market is the one most likely to want to transfer that license to a new computer. People who get the full retail version tend to do so by buying a new computer and probably never transfer the license to another computer, even if they could in the first place.

Isn't this them just admitting that almost everyone has been buying the OEM version for this very reason and their just now slapping a more appropriate name to it?

I understand that Apple makes their money from the hardware so they can afford to practically give away the OS but I think they have the right idea on selling the OS. Cheap upgrade and it's valid on all the computers you own. None of this non-transferable, expensive license per computer in your household crap. It's why OS X people are more than happy to update as soon as possible while Windows people are more than happy sticking to an OS ten years old. It isn't worth it to upgrade.

cube13• 14 years ago

They're not. It's the same license as the previous full Retail(i.e. $500+) Windows licenses, with the addition of VM install rights.

Previously, VM install was only allowed with the Professional SKU or above.

FireBeyond• 14 years ago

"previous full Retail(i.e. $500+) Windows licenses"

By $500+, you mean "less than $250", right?

http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-GLC-00182-Windows-7-Ultimate...

rogerbinns2• 14 years ago

I make my own machines (assemble would be a better term). What exactly would count as a new computer? I go around changing keyboards, drives, displays, processors, RAM, video cards etc, but very rarely all at once.

The last time I paid for Windows (outside of being forced to pay for it when getting a laptop) I got the "family" pack of Windows 7 which was 3 licenses so I was able to upgrade a laptop, workstation and a virtual machine. (Of course it was also considerable effort to install because Windows 7 can't upgrade XP and Microsoft installers assume that you are a thief.) I also only started doing the upgrade because I needed to produce 64 bit Windows binaries for my open source software (I'm a Linux user). Microsoft are going to have to try a lot harder to convince me to spend money and the considerable amount of time to touch Windows 8.

talmand11• 14 years ago

I think most of the time "new computer" means new motherboard. Which, if you change the motherboard for any reason then it'll likely end up in a call to Microsoft. The last time I had to do that it was a fairly painless procedure other than having to write down numbers and letters from a recorded voice.

notatoad• 14 years ago

>People who get the full retail version tend to do so by buying a new computer

nope, new computers come with OEM licenses, which have the same single-physical-machine restriction.

I can't think of a single situation where a full retail license of Windows is the actual license that somebody would need. It's for somebody who isn't building their own computer, isn't buying a new computer, and isn't upgrading an old windows computer. Mac Boot Camp users, maybe? I think the primary point of the $199 SKU is to tell people how much they're saving by purchasing a different version. they might as well price it at $999.

talmand11• 14 years ago

You are probably correct, I should have phrased that better. I do believe that in some cases you do get the full license but from the big names like Dell or Gateway you're probably getting the OEM version.

kmfrk3• 14 years ago

"Personal Use License for System Builder (PULSB)." Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it!

Who comes up with this stuff?!

Karunamon2• 14 years ago

Lawyers.

maayank• 14 years ago

Once MS, always MS[1]. I always have a shred of faith that next release their marketing will be more elegant, but every release I'm disappointed. I would pay to read a blog post making a strong case for their naming scheme.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k

kmfrk3• 14 years ago

I'm sure they'd explain to you that their strategic dynamism comes with a lot of synergies.

Karunamon2• 14 years ago

It does seem like they're slowly getting better. The marketing I've seen for the tablet (what little there is.. problem #1) makes it look slick.

The "Windows 7 was my idea" series was pretty neat too.

sixothree• 14 years ago

The same person who came up with the name Bing - the only four letter word that's difficult to say out loud.

MartinCron• 14 years ago

I would counter that "Kiln" is a four-letter word that's even more difficult to say out loud.

JonnieCache3• 14 years ago

Where do you hail (actually there's another one!) from?

To me, (UK) bing is self evidently the noise one hears when getting an answer right in a gameshow, or hitting a crystal wineglass with a fingernail.

tedunangst• 14 years ago

Who's going to buy it? This isn't a product that people are going to stand around talking about. If you're going to buy it, you're going to buy it regardless of the name.

It's anti-marketing. "We know you're too smart to fall for marketing speak, so we'll just tell you what's in the box."

jentulman• 14 years ago

If I remember rightly previously joe public were allowed to buy the OEM version, the difference between the OEM and full retail was that the OEM license was not transferable to another computer if you built a newer box (I seem to recall replacing the motherboard or CPU counted as a 'new machine') whereas full retail was transferable.

So it seems like this is a cheaper rebrand of the full retail license. 'Single computer' means it allows upgrades and covers only one CPU install at a time.

The paranoid cynic bit of my brain is wondering if this is so that home builders encourage the market in MS approved UEFI secure booting motherboards outside the full system OEMS.

sukuriant• 14 years ago

"If I remember rightly previously joe public were allowed to buy the OEM version"

I've historically tried to use official/supported/legal versions of all of my applications. Windows was one of those and I actually read parts of the OEM EULA at one point.

The following link sums up the use of an OEM license well:

http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/Pages/...

The most important part is here:

OEM System Builder: Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party. vs

Full Packaged Retail Product: Is intended to be re-sold separately from a PC for installation by the end user.

Disclosure: Microsoft Employee. I had the obsession to have properly licensed software on my machine long before that.

ck2• 14 years ago

So a modern car is way more complex than an operating system, and even contains several operating systems in itself.

Why does an OS need to have an EULA while a car does not?

nathan_long• 14 years ago

1) I doubt you're correct about the complexity. 2) The EULA is at largely about "we take no responsibility for whatever breaks." This would never fly legally for cars because failures kill people. Also, it's less reasonable; since you're unlikely to install arbitrary programs in your car and open it up to the internet for attack, whatever goes wrong likely IS the maker's fault.

Not that I'm a fan of EULAs.

jlgreco• 14 years ago

There are any number of modifications people can make to cars that make them more dangerous through no fault to the maker. On some cars, not making modifications is something of an exception, think of Wranglers.

The difference I think is that if someone modifies their jeep and ends up killing themself, it is rather easy for Jeep to prove their innocence; no matter how wrecked the car is the modified suspension or whatever will still be rather apparent. Imagine the nightmare that would be for a software company though.

Of course proving innocence is not how things are supposed to work, but...

dpark3• 14 years ago

First, a modern car is likely not more complex than an operating system. That the car "contains several operating systems in itself" isn't especially meaningful, because operating systems are not fungible. The "OS" controlling your ABS system (for example) is going to be as simple as possible. Windows on the other hand is aiming for as general as possible.

Second, you do have licensing agreements with your car. You have warranties that become void if you do X or Y, if you fail to properly maintain Q or R, etc. And those various OSes in the car are not sold to you any more than Windows is. They are licensed, under what specific terms I don't really know.

JonnieCache3• 14 years ago

Modern cars often have around 100mb of executable binary in them. It's pretty terrifying.

http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf

ceejayoz• 14 years ago

> Why does an OS need to have an EULA while a car does not?

Have you checked your car's user manual?

tobyjsullivan• 14 years ago

"With PULSB, Microsoft is dumping the full retail license used in previous versions."

So they just renamed it? Which was clearly necessary because the author of this article made it clear he couldn't grasp the point of the original full license...

spikefromspace• 14 years ago

Interesting. I personally like this, but seems like Microsoft really wants to annoy the OEMs. One of the major downsides of building your own PC was the high cost of the full retail Windows OS.

Windows 8 gets Personal Use License for anyone building their own PC

Related Stories