7 ms·

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

96 points by ukdm 14y ago

rowsdower 14y ago
Interesting. I'm still not going to install it on my gaming machine, though.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
  Mind telling us why? I haven't read any reviews or stats which suggest it will degragate gaming performance.
  - phren0logy 14y 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.
    - talmand 14y ago
      Same for me, I just recently built a new gaming rig with Win7 and my past machine was WinXP. I have no reason whatsoever to go to Win8 anytime soon. They could probably give me an update license for free and I probably wouldn't bother.
  - rowsdower 14y 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.
    - roop 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        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.
  - WiseWeasel 14y 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 14y ago
  At least until the latest DirectX is W8 only...
  - talmand 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
  Exactly that. When I read the title I was wondering "Why would someone who built his own pc use windows?".
  - GFischer 14y 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 14y ago
    For games, probably Blizzard games.
  - talmand 14y 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 14y ago
    Speaking for myself - .NET development in Visual Studio.
  - adolfojp 14y 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.
  - 14y ago
omh 14y 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 14y 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?
  - GFischer 14y 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).
    - sandGorgon 14y ago
      I have seen that Linux (Mint or Ubuntu) has better printer/scanner compatibility than Windows 7 if you dont have driver CDs. Try it - I think you will be surprised.
      - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
        Actually, the last few (brand new and "legacy") printer/scanners I've hooked up have never asked for a driver disc on Windows 7. The driver situation on Windows is far, far better than it used to be. EDIT: presuming you have an active Internet connection. Which is a fairly safe assumption these days, but by no means guaranteed.
    - bryanlarsen 14y ago
jbrowning 14y ago
The original article (http://www.zdnet.com/microsoft-radically-overhauls-license-agreements-for-windows-8-7000002866/ 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?
- talmand 14y 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.
  - dpark 14y 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.
    - talmand 14y ago
      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.
talmand 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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/dp/B002DHGMVY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345579876&sr=8-1&keywords=windows+7+ultimate http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-GLC-00182-Windows-7-Ultimate...
- rogerbinns 14y 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.
kmfrk 14y ago
"Personal Use License for System Builder (PULSB)." Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it! Who comes up with this stuff?!
- Karunamon 14y ago
  Lawyers.
- maayank 14y 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    I'm sure they'd explain to you that their strategic dynamism comes with a lot of synergies.
  - Karunamon 14y 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.
    - kmfrk 14y ago
      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 http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/15/engadget-surface
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
jentulman 14y 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 14y 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/licensing_for_hobbyists.aspx#fbid=VlFwPioE5Bs 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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...
- dpark 14y 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.
  - 14y ago
tobyjsullivan 14y 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 14y 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.

96 points by ukdm 14y ago

rowsdower 14y ago

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

UnoriginalGuy 14y ago
Mind telling us why? I haven't read any reviews or stats which suggest it will degragate gaming performance.
- phren0logy 14y 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.
  - talmand 14y ago
    Same for me, I just recently built a new gaming rig with Win7 and my past machine was WinXP. I have no reason whatsoever to go to Win8 anytime soon. They could probably give me an update license for free and I probably wouldn't bother.
- rowsdower 14y 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.
  - roop 14y ago
    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 14y ago
      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 14y ago
        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 14y ago
        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.
- WiseWeasel 14y 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 14y ago
At least until the latest DirectX is W8 only...
- talmand 14y 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 14y 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 14y ago
Exactly that. When I read the title I was wondering "Why would someone who built his own pc use windows?".
- GFischer 14y 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 14y ago
  For games, probably Blizzard games.
- talmand 14y 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 14y ago
  Speaking for myself - .NET development in Visual Studio.
- adolfojp 14y 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.
- 14y ago

omh 14y 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 14y 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?
- GFischer 14y 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).
  - sandGorgon 14y ago
    I have seen that Linux (Mint or Ubuntu) has better printer/scanner compatibility than Windows 7 if you dont have driver CDs. Try it - I think you will be surprised.
    - ConstantineXVI 14y ago
      Actually, the last few (brand new and "legacy") printer/scanners I've hooked up have never asked for a driver disc on Windows 7. The driver situation on Windows is far, far better than it used to be. EDIT: presuming you have an active Internet connection. Which is a fairly safe assumption these days, but by no means guaranteed.
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago

jbrowning 14y ago

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

talmand 14y 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.
- dpark 14y 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.
  - talmand 14y ago
    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.

talmand 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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/dp/B002DHGMVY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1345579876&sr=8-1&keywords=windows+7+ultimate http://www.amazon.com/Microsoft-GLC-00182-Windows-7-Ultimate...
rogerbinns 14y 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.

kmfrk 14y ago

"Personal Use License for System Builder (PULSB)." Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it! Who comes up with this stuff?!

Karunamon 14y ago
Lawyers.
maayank 14y 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 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
- kmfrk 14y ago
  I'm sure they'd explain to you that their strategic dynamism comes with a lot of synergies.
- Karunamon 14y 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.
  - kmfrk 14y ago
    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 http://daringfireball.net/linked/2012/08/15/engadget-surface
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]

jentulman 14y 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 14y 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/licensing_for_hobbyists.aspx#fbid=VlFwPioE5Bs 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 14y 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 14y 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 14y 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...
dpark 14y 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.
- 14y ago

tobyjsullivan 14y 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 14y 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.