Windows 8 gets Personal Use License for anyone building their own PC | Hacker News Reader

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

geek.com

96 pointsukdm74 comments

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

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.

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That may be a fair assement.

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.

Speaking for myself - .NET development in Visual Studio.

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.

For games, probably Blizzard games.

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

Who comes up with this stuff?!

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

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.

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

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

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."

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

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.

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

Lawyers.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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

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

That's got to include stuff like the stereo and navigation systems, which seems like cheating. The engine-management and safety-related systems are bound to be much smaller, and certainly don't need to me so large.

They are attack surfaces. Everything in the car is networked. Look at the paper: you can attack the engine through the gps. Maybe that was a different paper but I think it's in there.

They are attack surfaces ... you can attack the engine through the gps.

Sure, but the "attack surface" of the engine management firmware itself isn't enlarged by the presence of an insecure GPS system, is it?

I don't know if the people developing engine management firmware think about fire-walling themselves off from the rest of the in-car network. Certainly, they should. If they do, then the size of the code in the rest of the car doesn't seem relevant in terms of securing the really important stuff.

My dad is an acoustical and electrical engineer who works for heavy vehicle industries.

On one project, a burner controller, he used a PIC microcontroller. I think the capacity of onboard storage was 48k. He didn't add any extra storage.

I could be slightly wrong about the exact specs. I do arduino mainly.

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

Have you checked your car's user manual?

"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...

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.

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?

> 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?

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).

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.

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.

You're probably better off with Linux then. Many old gadgets only have windows xp drivers, and don't work on any version of windows that has been derived from NT. However, most do have Linux support

Windows XP was derived from NT.

Win2000 as well, that was my favorite for a long time. I eventually upgraded, kicking and screaming, because the Supreme Commander beta wouldn't run on Win2000 and required WinXP.

Fun silly fact, Win8 appears to be WinNT 6.2, go figure.

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.

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

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

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?

Mind telling us why?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com