Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 Gets Personal Use License For Homebuilt PCs
An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from Geek.com: "Microsoft has never really acknowledged or supported those among us who choose to build their own PCs. Windows licensing is usually offered in three forms: full retail product license, retail upgrade license, and OEM license. If you want to build your own machine at the moment, Microsoft expects you to buy a full retail copy of Windows. With Windows 8 that all changes and Microsoft has decided to actively support individuals who want to build their own machines or run Windows 8 as a virtual machine. That support comes in the form of a new license option called the Personal Use License for System Builder (PULSB). With PULSB, Microsoft is dumping the full retail license used in previous versions. Instead it is offering a version of Windows 8 to be installed as the main operating system on a single system meant for personal use, or in a virtual machine running on an existing PC (running any legal OS such as Windows 7, Mac OS X, or your favorite flavor of Linux)."
Or is Microsoft really desperate to get windows 8 to work?
I don;t know that this is as wonderful as the post would like to suggest. It's never been a problem to purchase and use the deeply discounted OEM versions for home-built PCs. SO, my first question is what does a PULSB license cost as compared to OEM. The second question is; will we still be able to purchase OEM?
Between this and the full product license?
so what's the difference then?
Sort of. Almost.
Errrrm, not so much really. No.
If I choose to run Windows as my primary OS I want the full monty, not something stripped down, and you just know MS has stripped SOMETHING out. If I run Windows in a virtual machine I'm probably just doing it for one or two apps.
Hey! Here's an idea -- MS could bless WINE and sell each of the Linux users a license to run a full-on win32/64 library. Yeah!
What? Where'd everybody go? Balmer? Bill? Hellooo-oo.
Echo.
This seems like a waste of time and as I expect marketing $ on Microsoft's part. They expect the cost to be on par with the OEM version. So folks running windows now don't have to buy that random sata cable with the OS? Doesn't seem like much of a difference. I seriously doubt if you are building your own computer that you were running out and buying the retail version of Windows, that would be a bit silly.
I read the article and it sounds to me like they are "dumping the full retail license" for the PULSB license and keeping the OEM one. It states that the PULSB "will definitely be cheaper than purchasing a full retail license and probably on a par with OEM pricing." So am I really to believe that a company, Microsoft, is really going to be lowering the overall gross profits? Where's the catch?
What do they mean by "legal OS", and how do they enforce that particular point ?
Finally we don't have to jump through hoops any more to sell our soul. We just have to pay for the extraction.
If it's not free (beer) then it's not going to make much of a difference converting unlicensed copies into licensed ones. Home built PCs often use unlicensed copies of Windows, among people who are building PCs to run Windows and games at least. You're not going to convert those people to legitimate users unless you can meet the current price they are paying now--which is zero.
For personal use I don't know why anyone would pay for a copy of Windows, especially when it means taking money away from spending it on hardware. When faced with the choice of a "legitimate" copy of Windows or the next highest graphics card or CPU, people will always choose the hardware that provides tangible improvement. A licensed copy of windows is bit-for-bit identical to the unlicensed one and offers no improvement other than some vague (false) sense of moral correctness. And that's entirely based on the user's subjective opinions on software licensing and the morality of imaginary property.
So whom is this licensing option really going to be for? I don't see it going anywhere, unless the price is so low as to be negligible, but then they'd be undercutting their other more profitable licensing options.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Since when is the system builder's license new? Am I missing something, because I could swear I have two of these (XP and 7)? They're usually about half the price of the full retail.
Although final pricing for Windows 8 hasn’t been announced yet, the PULSB license will definitely be cheaper than purchasing a full retail license and probably on a par with OEM pricing. It is also expected that pricing in general for the new OS will be lower than what we currently pay for copies of Windows 7.
Hmmm... "not announced yet", "probably", "it is also expected"
Sounds like a lot of maybes.... I'll wait for the real prices to see if Microsoft actually is on to something.
What is "assembling"? Instead of buying a shiny boxed retail/update version, I suppose I can unscrew a screw from my old pc, re-screw it on, and then get the reduced "self-assembler" price?
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Oh, I can see why Microsoft would offer a new license:
- Personal -> they tie that your Windows-account, so you can't never ever sell it
- Single System -> they tie that to your PC configuration, so you can't change your GPU without upgrading to full version
I thought one of the biggest advantages to building your own computer was the ability NOT to pay microsoft for the privelidge of owning a computer. Sure there are one or 2 small places that allow you to buy a windows free, pre-built system, but usually with fairly limited selection of specs, and often no cheaper than a PC with windows installed (which tells me the company is probably paying Microsoft for the license, even though you aren't getting one (likely a bulk agreement where they pay microsoft per system sold instead of per license installed))
Building your own computer has, for years, been the only way to ensure you got your ideal machine, without having to also buy a windows license to run an operating system you already own, or are allowed to get for free.
I've built my own computers exclusively for nearly 20 years... though I must admit that I've slipped a bit here, I'm starting to look to a new computer now, and I haven't kept up with the latest news on components, It's not as easy as it once was to figure out which part is better than which other one, and without having kept up it's a bit of a daunting task to select the right parts this time... I'm debating just buying a pre-built system, but I don't really want to go that route after nearly 20 years of doing it myself.
FTFL.
MS isn't merely 'simplifying' their licence agreement, they're cementing the license aspect to avoid reasonably onerous obligations of being a normal contracting party.
In brief: a contract for sale implies goods and services. Goods are subject to the Sale of Goods Act which implies terms on quality and fitness for purpose. And would you have guess it: legislation that governing unfair contractual terms does't apply to licences.
Hurray - if you brought from via a party, you've gone from ownership with the rights of a consumer to no ownership with no reasonable rights and the right to fair terms.
The issue has always been with a lot of piracy. The fallacy is the company is competing with free, that isn't the case, the problem is the company is competing with easier to get. Microsoft with its different licenses where the rates that people are willing to pay they are technically not support to pay. Even the guys who do not want a pirated copy but an original would get the OEM off eBay (something we really shouldn't be doing)... However if we can get a good price for the OS a lot of us will be willing to get the fully legit version.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
That's why the ladies don't call you back the next day.
I'll believe that when I see it. Or when I don't see it, I guess.
If you're betting on hackers not figuring out how to run the most popular OS on the hardware they own you're quite the risk taker. Either that, or you have an incredibly, and dare I say unjustified, faith in MS's ability to create secure software.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
most shops would sell you the OS for purchasing any 1 piece of equipment which goes inside your case. [...] I upgraded the RAM in my laptop
Which isn't so good for people who want to run Windows on a MacBook Pro with Retina Display, which has almost no socketed parts. See the recent story about sealed-box computers
"But why would anyone want to run Windows on a Mac?" Developers who already have a Mac for developing Mac or iOS apps might need to dual-boot to Windows to test a web site in IE, port a Mac application to Windows, port a Mac game to XNA for Xbox Live Indie Games on Xbox 360, or port an iOS application to Windows Phone 7.
Building your own computer has, for years, been the only way to ensure you got your ideal machine
Maybe your ideal machine. My ideal machine, on the other hand, can be used while I ride public transit. I don't see a lot of stores in my home town selling kits to build a laptop.
I'll skip this version of Windows just like I did Vista and ME.
That sucking sound you hear is my bandwidth.
If you had an old windows system you were upgrading, you bought the upgrade version.
If you were cheap and didn't need microsoft support you bought the system builders/OEM version.
If you had a system without an OS (meaning you built it yourself) you bought the full retail version.
I can understand the potential of a VM'd license, I don't understand offering one for people that "build their own systems". They already have two versions that work for that.
This is just another attempt at Microsoft for eroding the userbase of it's primary competitor, Apple.
FTFY
Unless you consider Android Linux. That is a complacently separate debate. But Microsoft vs. the normal GNU/Linux distributions Microsoft is still strong, and not loosing much ground to them (Sorry Linux for Desktop Fans). But Apple has been sucking up a lot of Microsoft Thunder.
Mac Sales are gaining market share (at the expense of Microsoft), iPod, then iPhone then iPad, sucked up Microsoft growth market.
Android has been successful in the phone market. It hasn't yet gain traction in the Tablet market. And still after over a decade, no one has made the iPod Killer... The only iPod killer is Apples others products.
The GNU/Linux (The Linux we tend to think of) Distributions. Are not really good for the Desktop (still) they are great for servers, appliances, behind the scenes type of stuff, Developers Work stations. Yes Grandma can use Linux to browse the web, you can use it to code. But what about average Joe who wants to import pictures, make home movies, play games (with all their hardware working). Still Windows is dominate, if not windows they will use Apple.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Buy a mouse? now you can legitimately buy an OEM copy of windows XP/Vista/Windows7/etc....
all PC hobbits have known of this for a decade... Or is Microsoft going to stop selling OEM copies to places like NewEgg? That would be the real story.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
doesn't matter, had sex.
Am I the only one who thinks this is Microsoft's attempt (pretty good one I think) at having an offering that appeases the tech crowd so we don't rattle our cages and scare the normals when all the non-home-made PC's start coming out with windows 8 locked down by the UEFI (If I'm remembering the right term for the new boot method).
If that is the case, seems like the right response. If all the hp/dell/lenovo/acer/what have you cannot have their OS's replaced, many more will be home building who wouldn't have otherwise, and this option gives a non-locked down windows for our dual boot so we're not all using *nix only as MS fears.
Don't worry little nerd. Just keep watching sitcoms and at some point it'll come up.
How, exactly, will this not be a full retail license?
Even TFA says that "full retail" will no longer be offered, which makes this sound a lot like nothing more than a simple name change.
[A Mac user] might need to dual-boot to Windows to test a web site in IE [or] port a Mac application to Windows
The rMBP along with all other sealed or unsealed computers will be able to use the PULSB licence, which is supposedly going to cost about the same as the OEM licence. So where's the problem?
If one tests an application or web site only on Windows 8, then one can certify compatibility of an application only with Windows 8 or a web site only with those versions of Internet Explorer that run on Windows 8. I can see abandoning Windows XP in some markets, as security updates for that operating system will end in 20 months. But as of the second half of 2012, would it be acceptable to tell customers that Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not supported? I don't think so; I think it would constitute unacceptably limiting one's market.
But again - why the special mention of the Retina?
Because it's the case against damien_kane's recommendation of "purchasing any 1 piece of equipment which goes inside your case", and the article I linked claims that sealed boxes like the rMBP are likely to become more common.
All I want is to get a copy of recent Windows to run on VmWare Fusion on my 2009 MacBook Pro / Snow Leopard.
1. How much? I just need to download a disk image. I don't need frills but do need windowsupdate style security updates.
2. Will it run at a usable speed on 1 cpu or will it make me want to kill myself and/or give it both cpus? Would Win7 be faster?
3. How much disk space does it want?
4. Do I have to have some kind of account at MS like someone mentioned (which I would not like)?
5. Can I make interface show up in a language besides English?
World leaders announce an end to global hunger, flying cars to become available for retail sale next Thursday, and everyone gets a pony.
Slashdot readers respond by bitching that it's all too late, it's not enough, and there's got to be a catch somewhere.
Hell's bells, guys, seriously...lighten up...
Price is key. It needs to be $100 to capture the existing OEM license buyers.
Hit the $50 mark and lots of people who would have pirated will just buy.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
So far as I can tell from the hype, Windows 8 is supposed to be a dumbed down version of 7 optimized for the touch screens of tablets and phones.
People who build their own computers do not build tablets or phone, and typically want MORE OS than you basic user. They are more likely to want the Pro, or the Enterprise version of the OS, not the Home basic, and certainly not something limited beyond even that.
Sure some builder and makers play with some touch screens, usually for the front of some massive tower to control fans and lights and stuff like that, but not as an OS.
So MS is making a special version of the Windows 8 OS for "Personal Use". To me that tells me that it will probably be limited in someway that the others are not, particulary if it is cheap.
So a OS that is designed to be limited, and a version of that, that will be even more limited, for users who want more than normal? I might be guessing, but the demand for such a thing might be non-existant, which is maybe why they are doing it.
Though my interest is piqued for the personal licence anyway. The fact that they arn't ignoring us is something at least, even though perhaps their thinking may be wrong. We shall see.
doesn't matter, hand sex.
FTFY
They need to keep engineer reserved for their most highly skilled certifications...
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
The article mentioned changes to the EULA and its format. I wonder if this means we can finally use windows to run weapons systems now.
To be honest, I don't understand why Microsoft doesn't just give away Windows for free as a loss leader. It sounds like they're headed toward selling software via the Microsoft store a la Apple's app store and Google Play, in which case they'll be getting a cut of all software sales. I can understand selling some kind of "business connectivity" package that contains the domain connectivity bits that companies require at a premium. They're even getting into the hardware retail business, as well as hammering hard on search (thus data mining and advertising), online services, console gaming, etc.
With their main operating system competitors a company that sells its OS as part of its hardware package (Apple) and a loose conglomerate developers that give away their operating system--and most of their productivity software--completely free (as in speech and beer), it just seems like it would be a smart move by Microsoft to completely embrace its alternative revenue streams and make a play to get legal copies of its core OS--and its connectivity to its software store where the real money is now--on every desktop, laptop, and tablet in the world. How many users, presented with the option of buying the MacOS upgrades for $20 or $25 a pop, would be mighty tempted to install Windows 8 on their Macs for free instead, especially if they know they won't have to pay for any more MacOS or Windows upgrades down the line? Microsoft could very well steal a chunk of market share from Apple on their own hardware.
The most frequent justification I see from Linux users (myself included) for using Linux is, "You never have to pay for upgrades to get the latest and greatest version again." Yeah, the free software is nice, but you can get free software (many times the exact same software--Firefox, LibreOffice, GIMP, Audacity, etc.) for Windows. Yeah, the principles behind open source are admirable--and make no mistake, I would continue to support them--but most average schmoes really couldn't care less that they can download and compile their own OS source code, and wouldn't have a clue how to go about it even if they did care.
From a purely business standpoint, I really think that giving Windows away for free is the best long-term strategy for Microsoft, and it would be perceived as a bold and welcome move by the industry as well as draw in a bunch more users who would then earn Microsoft money via software sales, advertising, and online services.
To me this is what the Retail version if for. If you don't buy it on your pre-built computer, you can go to a store and buy the retail version ot install on any coputer, one you built of one you bought pre-built. I always buy the OEM version since I do not need support.
So I disagree, I think the Retail version is for this purpose already.
This isn't reddit folks.
Hope I'm wrong, but I think I might have found the catch.
It seems like this is a replacement for "full retail" and what they've really dropped is the "Generic, shrinkwrap OEM license" package which is what personal system builders used to buy (with debatable legality).
Unfortunately, I suspect that's also what the handful of nice PC makers who currently sell PCs with Windows as an optional extra offer. So maybe MS's plan is to throw a spanner in that - perhaps they'll have to sign up to a 'proper' OEM licensing deal with MS, and sell PCs with a "proper" vendor-customised Windows pre-installed (...and be 'discouraged' from selling bare PCs).
That would explain the otherwise convoluted wording "You may not install the software as an operating system on any computer except one that you are building for your own use or as an operating system running on a local virtual machine or a separate partition." when they just could say "You can install this on one computer, owned by you, for your personal use". (see the ZDNet article) and the demise of the Full Retail version. I can't believe that they want to stop people replacing the whole OS on their Mac or Linux PC with Windows, but it does make it clear that a PD maker couldn't sling one of these licenses in with an otherwise bare, but ready-made, PC.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
I build my own PCs and I don't mind getting a license just not a full retail price. What's the price of a OEM license goes for?
Microsoft is pricing Windows 8 cheaply as, for the first time ever they are positioned to give you the handles and sell the blades, to borrow the old razor addage.
Who cares what Windows 8 costs - Every copy sold creates a potential income stream as they will get a percentage of sale on every piece of software moved through their online store, not unlike the Apple app store. How long will it be until CDROM drives start disappearing from even desktop PCs, as virtually everything is updated and/or sold through the Internet? Oh, you need to burn a DVD of your kid's softball game? Buy the USB slim external drive off Newegg for $ 40. Every Windows 8 copy exposes more consumers to the Zune market for music, TV shows, movies - you're getting the idea.
Microsoft probably has an internal calculation somewhere showing that they will make up the price difference between cheap Windows 8 and old sky-high pricing on Windows 7, Windows Vista, etc. within a year as they slice off a 20-30% chunk of every single game, desktop app and TV show you purchase through their digital store. Everything past that is gravy.
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK.
"Mac Sales are gaining market share (at the expense of Microsoft), "\
no they aren't. they where actual down in 2011. In term of overall industry.
Apple is getting its income form portables and ancillary item. Apps, music, etc.
Apple is becoming a portable media company. 25%of there revenues is from the iPad... or what short sighted people on /. called it "the iFad.'
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Apple-revenue-breakdown-shows-iPad-is-a-quarter-of-its-sales-now-Macs-dont-really-matter_id32825
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"The license will only validate on computers with UEFI activated by a Microsoft key."
Just kidding (?)
Apple would turn wine into water, then charge customers a premium for it.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
I don't get it.
And you never will :P
... but it's still dog shit.
Will this license allow for more than 1 VM? So far, all the licensing vehicles for Windows 7 allow only exactly 1 VM (except for Windows 7 Enterprise with Software Assurance, but that's not for home users).
Allowing only 1 VM is a disconnection from reality. Lots of people are using desktop editions of Windows in VMs and all of them are pirating it, many of them just because Microsoft does not make any legal way available. Stupid.
But does the vast majority of computer users want to run Windows 8 ?
If the vast majority still want to run the version of Windows that is available to the public, and Windows 8 is the version of Windows that is available to the public, then yes, the vast majority want to run Windows 8. To what extent do you think the new Start Screen will turn PC owners off of using their existing applications and peripherals that are compatible with Windows?
What are you watching that still requires codec packs?
WebM video (Matroska + VP8 + Vorbis) requires the (freely licensed) WebM codec pack. In countries with H.264 patents (and thus no legal VLC), MP4 video (MOV + H.264 + AAC) requires the (paid) upgrade from Windows XP, Windows Vista Home Basic, or Windows 7 Starter to Windows 7 Home Premium.