
Windows 8 gets Personal Use License for anyone building their own PC - ukdm
http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-pick/windows-8-gets-personal-use-license-for-anyone-building-their-own-pc-20120821/
======
talmand
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.

~~~
rogerbinns
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.

~~~
talmand
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.

~~~
rogerbinns
Every time I have had to call up Microsoft I have gone through the automated
process and it is pain since the voice recognition doesn't work. Then at the
end it dumps me to a human operator where I have to answer questions (largely
accusing me of being a thief), read out all the damn numbers _again_ , and
then eventually get a set to type in.

This is especially a problem if you end up with a faulty motherboard or
similar, and so can end up doing several (re)installs trying to work out what
the heck is going on. Thankfully it has been a while since I last encountered
a faulty board.

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

~~~
Goronmon
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.

~~~
ralfn
This just isnt true. Esspecially not for new releases of windows. I dont think
you ever build a system. Getting decent drivers is hard, and the support on
components is as bad for windows as it is for linux.

And lets not even deal with the fact that the majority of high performance
components target linux servers.

Yes, on the very low end, youll find hardware that is not well supported on
linux. But the only reason it even works on windows, is because the system
builder bothered to make the effort.

When you are building a machiene yourself, linux is much more plug and play
than windows. But you can not honestly expect linux to compete with
"preinstalled" large-volume windows systems, on hardware compatibility.

~~~
Goronmon
I'm just going to disagree with literally everything you've posted here, as it
goes against everything I've dealt with over the last 10 years or so when
putting together my own machines. And my experiences with Linux as well.

~~~
talmand
I agree. I think we require his definition of high performance components and
what he is building these computers for. I'm thinking a serious mismatch of
markets here from he's saying and what he was responding to.

~~~
ralfn
That may be a fair assement.

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

Who comes up with this stuff?!

~~~
maayank
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>

~~~
Karunamon
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.

~~~
kmfrk
It's been a kind of "eight step forwards, seven back" experience lately.

Surface looks great, but goddamn Microsoft have done some boneheaded stuff.[1]

The same applies to this license. I'm sure it's a truly great feat, but the
idea is wrapped in so much silliness it almost makes it entirely ludicrous.

[1]: <http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/15/engadget-surface>

------
jbrowning
The original article ([http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-radically-overhauls-
license-a...](http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-radically-overhauls-license-
agreements-for-windows-8-7000002866/)) 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?

~~~
talmand
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.

~~~
dpark
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.

~~~
talmand
This is also just how understand all this so I admit I could be wrong.

Full or upgrade retail copies that you purchase in the box belong to you and
can be transferred. As long as it is only used on one computer at a time. In
some cases they sold three licenses to a box but I'm not sure if that was
three keys in the same box or one key that could be used three times. I never
bought one of those.

Any other method of getting a license to Windows may not allow transfer. So,
again this is how I understand it, if you buy a pre-built computer then that
license of Windows can be tied to that computer and cannot be transferred.
That's mostly what I'm meaning by being tied to the hardware.

The reason I understand it this way is because that pre-built computer would
most likely have an OEM version of Windows installed. Since the OEM license
cannot be transferred then the resulting customer cannot do that as well.
Which is grossly unfair to that customer.

There's also the possibility this is because of a license agreement with the
company that sold you the computer and not an agreement with Microsoft. So a
license to Windows may be an agreement between you and the computer builder
and not Microsoft. Which is also a stupid situation to put a customer in
because they may not understand the difference.

Granted, this seems to be a "depends" thing. For example, I have used the
license key from an old laptop that's no longer used to install WinXP on a
different computer that I built out of old parts for my kids. But I'm also
assuming that the key on the laptop is for the full retail version of XP and
not the OEM version. Although Gateway may be unhappy with the situation but I
think it unfair for me not to be able to reuse the key (that I paid for) when
the original laptop no longer functions and is not worth repairing because it
is around twelve years old.

In the end, when I buy a license to Windows I should be able to install it
wherever I wish as long as I stick to the number of allowed active installs.
Regardless of how I obtained that key. Well, I guess if they claim they gave
me the key for free I can sort of understand but would still disagree.

I'm not a lawyer either, just a consumer stuck in legalese crap.

~~~
dpark
I believe most of what you're saying is correct. The point of contention is
the OEM license restriction. I understand your issue there, that you should be
able to reuse the license you paid for. The opposing viewpoint is that you did
_not_ pay for a license, at least not a full one. Traditionally, the OEM
license has been priced lower specifically because it is more restricted. You
paid a fraction of the cost of a full license specifically because you were
not paying for the ability to transfer the software to a new machine.

Maybe Microsoft will eventually do away with this restriction and just have
one license. I think that would be a nice move.

------
ck2
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
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
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...

------
tobyjsullivan
"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
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.

------
omh
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
> 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?

~~~
GFischer
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).

~~~
Danieru
As someone who contributes to linux's printing subsystem I will say that we
put a _lot_ of effort into keeping old printers working. To the point where
the original apple laser printers should be usable. Provided at some point it
worked under linux then it should still work. Every time we rewrite the
printing system we bring along all our supported printers through some
comparability method.

On the other hand Microsoft and printer vendors _do_ drop support for some
printers at every major windows revision. Please do give Ubuntu a try.

~~~
GFischer
I will, I might be prejudiced.

I had tried SUSE Linux as a replacement, and had to go back to Windows, but
the latest versions of Ubuntu sound like they are very good.

However, the cost of additional trips to my parents', grandparents', or
uncle's houses for maintenance or unfamiliarity is still too much for me, so
I'm still reluctant to recommend it to them (especially since their computers
already came with Windows preinstalled).

I will try it out for business use as well if I finally start my own company
(hopefully next year).

Edit: thank you for contributing to Linux and I hope you will be rewarded for
it.

Edit2: I have great faith that the newer generations will be much more likely
to try out and like Ubuntu, since they've been given the OLPC computers :) .
While I'm reluctant to suggest my older family members to switch, the younger
ones have a chance.

------
jentulman
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
"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/...](http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/licensing/sblicensing/Pages/licensing_for_hobbyists.aspx#fbid=VlFwPioE5Bs)

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.

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

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
Mind telling us why?

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

~~~
rowsdower
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.

~~~
roop
I'm using Windows 8 in a VM, and I'm liking it just fine. I just think of it
as: instead of a Start menu, we now have a start screen - that's it. Most of
the time (ie. when you don't need to access the Start menu), you never see the
Metro side of it at all, so it just looks like W7 to me. But, yes, that means
there's no reason to upgrade to W8.

~~~
drblast
I'm in the same boat. I really like W8, and I think it's a shame it's getting
a bad rap because it's different. I'd give it a shot with an open mind for a
day or two.

It's fantastic on a multi-monitor setup; the start screen and full screen apps
can be anchored to one screen. So if you want to read a PDF full screen, for
example, while doing desktop work on another, it works very well.

Also, you can have multiple task bars on multiple screens if you want. And you
can do almost everything with the keyboard that I used to use the mouse for.

If you miss the start menu, try this: hit the windows key and start typing the
name of the program you want to open.

~~~
talmand
I would have to say that everything you described as a positive for Win8 can
be done now in Win7. Well, unless they introduced new keyboard shortcuts. Not
to discredit your opinion on Win8 though, if you like it then that's cool.

~~~
drblast
It can be done, but it's much faster in Win8, for example. The start menu
search in Win7 is noticably slower.

And there are new shortcuts, like "Windows-x." It's the closest I've come in a
while to feeling as productive as in my old FVWM setup.

