ie8 fix
madison

Is it OK to use OEM Windows on your own PC? Don't ask Microsoft

By | November 15, 2009, 3:00pm PST

Summary: If you go shopping online for Windows 7, you’ll find OEM System Builder copies at significant discounts from full retail prices. Microsoft’s own web sites and support forums give conflicting, confusing, often inaccurate information about these products. What’s an honest consumer supposed to do?

If Microsoft expects its customers to take license agreements seriously, it has a responsibility to communicate the terms of those agreements to its customers clearly and unambiguously. As I noted earlier this month, Microsoft does a generally poor job of explaining its complicated rules for how Windows licensing works. But I deliberately left one type of Windows license off that list, because it deserves its own special place in the Corporate Communications Hall of Shame.

I’m talking about OEM System Builder licenses for Windows desktop editions. If you look at any online shopping site that caters to PC enthusiasts, you’ll find these copies displayed alongside the upgrade and full license packages that Microsoft says retail customers are supposed to buy. My friend and fellow Windows expert Paul Thurrott just posted a thorough look at the Windows 7 OEM System Builder package, complete with pictures. If you’re building your own PC or looking for installation media that won’t make you jump through hoops to install it, this product is extremely attractive, because it’s significantly less expensive than a full retail license. The installation media works almost exactly like a full retail copy of Windows, except that it can’t be used to perform upgrades, only a custom (clean) install. After installation, an OEM copy is essentially indistinguishable from a retail copy.

Many readers tell me they bought that software and installed it on their own new (or old) PC, happily saving a significant chunk of change in the process. According to Microsoft, they are violating the terms of the OEM System Builder license agreement, which says, in convoluted language, that you must install the software using the OEM Preinstallation Kit and then resell the PC to a third party. If you install that software on your own PC, you don’t have a “genuine” copy of Windows.

But how are you supposed to know? Microsoft allows any online retailer to sell OEM System Builder software with no indication of its terms and conditions. A consumer is expected to read the license agreement printed in tiny type on the outside of the OEM System Builder software package and then translate its dense legalese into plain English (PDF here):

Once, not so long ago, Microsoft officially allowed hobbyists and Windows enthusiasts to use discounted OEM System Builder copies on new PCs built for personal use. Last year, in a post titled OEM licensing confusion starts at Microsoft.com, I posted pictures of official, Microsoft-produced documents that made this policy crystal-clear, in plain English. A document containing this graphic was available just last year, in fact: [Update: Some people reading this article seem a bit confused. The following language was not actually part of the Windows license agreement. Instead it was contained in official documents Microsoft distributed to help explain the license terms for its partners.]

But that document is now gone. In fact, over the past two years, someone at Microsoft has deliberately and methodically scrubbed all traces of those documents from the web. Only a few traces of that language have survived, as in this blog post from the Microsoft Small Business Community blog. They’ve been replaced with a single page at Microsoft’s OEM Partner Center, which tries to stomp out the idea that end users can purchase and use this software. The Licensing for Hobbyists page, written for Microsoft partners and not for consumers, includes this Q&A, which was written more than a year ago:

Q. What is Microsoft doing to clarify these terms to resellers and end-users?

A. In addition to announcing this clarification to the System Builder channel, Microsoft is working with online retailers to post language on their websites explaining the licensing rules for OEM System Builder channel software.

Whoever was in charge of that effort has some ’splainin’ to do, because no such language is available on any of the online retail sites I checked.

I used Microsoft’s own “decision engine” to shop for a single copy of Windows 7 Ultimate, 64-bit edition. According to the Bing Shopping results, there are 21 online stores where you can buy this package, for prices ranging from $169.53 to $237.59. Bing’s Cashback program offers an additional rebate of as much as 7% on those prices.

And here’s the kicker: Those results show only OEM System Builder copies. When I tried to search for a fully licensed copy of Windows 7 Ultimate using Bing, I couldn’t find it anywhere. Using Bing, I found upgrades and OEM copies only, neither of which can be legally installed on a newly built homebrew PC. I had better luck searching at Google, where I finally found a listing of 138 sellers offering the full Windows 7 package for prices that start at $280.92.

Following the links from those Bing results led to pages at ZipZoomfly.com and CompUSA.com and TigerDirect and CompSource. None of those pages contained any licensing information (not even a link to the Microsoft OEM license) and none of them showed the actual product package. The listing page at Newegg.com does contain the following disclaimer: “Use of this OEM System Builder Channel software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. This software is intended for pre-installation on a new personal computer for resale…” But there’s no way to actually read that license, and nothing discourages any consumer from buying it for personal use. That scenario was repeated on every site I visited.

If you’re confused by all this information (or lack thereof), you might do what several would-be buyers did and visit Microsoft’s Windows 7 forums, where you can get your questions answered by Microsoft support engineers and MVPs. These Microsoft Answers forums generally do a good job on technical questions. But there’s no guarantee you’ll get a consistent or accurate answer on licensing issues. The answer to this question, for example, seems to be 100% wrong:

Q: I have a small company and one of my clients has asked if I could upgrade several of their computers hardware and have inquired about me updating their computers to Windows 7.

In researching pricing for Windows 7 to give an estimate on cost for their requested computer work, I see that several places offer for purchase “OEM System Builder” software. The ‘OEM System Builder” is subject to “Microsoft OEM System Builder License” , can I purchase this OEM software or do I need to purchase the ‘full’ version?

A: Yes you can purchase the OEM version of Windows 7. The OEM versions of Windows have been available to the general public for many, many years and have worked without problems.

The main difference between OEM and Retail is that the OEM license does not allow moving the OS to a different computer, once it is installed.

Other than this, they are the same OS.

And here’s another Q&A, asked and answered two days after Windows 7 was released last month:

Q: I build my own computers–mainly so I’ll know what’s in them and dont have to fool with the manufacturers’ alleged “tech support” while I’m in warranty. At some point in the future I’ll probably want to build one with Windows 7–when I do, do I qualify to use the “OEM System Builders” version or do I have to buy a retail copy?

A: Yes, you can buy the “OEM System Builders” version of Windows 7. Many online stores sell it.

That response was marked as an official Answer by the moderator of the forum, a Microsoft MVP.

So, to recap: A PC hobbyist or enthusiast who wants to buy a legal copy of Windows 7 at a discount gets confusing and conflicting information from Microsoft’s web site. Microsoft’s own “decision engine” leads him to software he isn’t supposed to use, and even offers extra discounts if he buys through those links. He gets no information from online retailers who will happily take his money for a product he technically isn’t allowed to install. And he gets absolutely wrong answers if he asks at Microsoft’s official help forums.

Is that pathetic, or what?

A Microsoft spokesperson told me that the policy toward use of OEM software by home PC builders hasn’t changed, and that the documents I found and pointed readers to for years were “mistakes.” Sorry, that doesn’t cut it. When you publish information on your website, and when you create glossy handouts that you distribute to your partners for years, those represent your policy. You can’t suddenly change that policy by deleting copies of the old documents and pretending they never existed. That shows an appalling lack of transparency, not to mention a lack of respect for customers.

Normally, I’m a firm believer in following the letter and the spirit of software license agreements. In this case, though, given Microsoft’s complete breakdown in communicating with its customers, I’m willing to make a major exception. I have no problem enthusiastically recommending these discounted copies of Windows for anyone building a PC for their own personal use. And I think someone at Microsoft should step up and formally approve that exception. It’s the right thing to do.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications.

Disclosure

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is a freelance technical journalist and book author. All work that Ed does is on a contractual basis.

Since 1994, Ed has written more than 25 books about Microsoft Windows and Office. Along with various co-authors, Ed is completely responsible for the content of the books he writes. As a key part of his contractual relationship with publishers, he gives them permission to print and distribute the content he writes and to pay him a royalty based on the actual sales of those books. Ed's books written prior to fall 2011 have been distributed by Que Publishing (a division of Pearson Education) and by Microsoft Press. As of November 2011, Ed is a partner in the independent publishing company Fair Trade Digital Exchange, which exclusively publishes his books.

On occasion, Ed accepts consulting assignments. In recent years, he has worked as an expert witness in cases where his experience and knowledge of Microsoft and Microsoft Windows have been useful. In each such case, his compensation is on an hourly basis, and he is hired as a witness, not an advocate.

Ed does not own stock or have any other financial interest in Microsoft or any other software company. He owns 500 shares of stock in EMC Corporation, which was purchased before the company's acquisition of VMware. In addition, he owns 350 shares of stock in Intel Corporation, purchased more than two years ago. All stocks are held in retirement accounts for long-term growth.

Ed does not accept gifts from companies he covers. All hardware products he writes about are purchased with his own funds or are review units covered under formal loan agreements and are returned after the review is complete.

Biography

Ed Bott

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. He's served as editor of the U.S. edition of PC Computing and managing editor of PC World; both publications had monthly paid circulation in excess of 1 million during his tenure. He is the author of more than 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, including the recently released Windows 7 Inside Out.

351
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Obvious workaround is obvious:
ritchie909 24th Apr
I built a pc for a "clent", in this case my wife. She paid for the pc. The license terms dont specify any requirements for.transaction terms. So lets just say she paid for it by not kicking my butt when she found out.how much I spent on pc hardware. Then, she decided she'd rather have a new vaccum cleaner, and iI just happened to have purchased one I really didn't need. So we traded.

My next planned build is for a client who wants me to spend a few years testing the machine and working out.the kinks before.taking delivery. wink
0 Votes
+ -
who care
caparthron 15th Nov 2009
if you're gonna put that much effort into it, you're probably just going to pirate the software to begin with.....
0 Votes
+ -
One is illegal the other isn't
Richard Flude 15th Nov 2009
Simplification of the OEM terms and conditions came about as a result
of the DoJ vs MS antitrust settlement, following a finding of fact that
MS had abused it's market position with system builders.

The best example was MS behaviour towards IBM for it's continued
support of OS2.

With the DoJ seemly lost any interest competition enforcement,
presumably preferring the media circuit and long lunches, MS is wisely
unwinding their commitment.

I'm not one the pirates software, however the loops forced upon end
user of MS software is enough to drive many to it. Funny watching it;-)
0 Votes
+ -
So the Microsoft police
Crestview 16th Nov 2009
are in my trunk watching HOW I use my installations? LOL!
0 Votes
+ -
I suppose they could get an order for discovery
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 16th Nov 2009
from new egg or tigerdirect on who they sold OEM licenses to, in order to match up and see who bought what particular key, and then sue you, I guess. It would cost them more than it is worth to do all of that.

Personally the more draconian MS becomes, the happier I am that I can dump their crap at home @ anytime, and not rely on it.
0 Votes
+ -
Typical MS idiocy.
AzuMao 16th Nov 2009
Why the hell do they want to punish people for
building their own PCs? If anything they should be
happy about them, since they don't get bulk
discounts like OEM retailers do. Why the need to
penalize them further???
0 Votes
+ -
Just like anybody else.

Otherwise I'll continue to buy these discounted OEMs over at TigerDirect. Capice? wink
..the people making their own PCs definitely
shouldn't have to pay an even more
outrageous price than the people buying prebuilts!
0 Votes
+ -
Who said anything about that?
Wintel BSOD 18th Nov 2009
Having hobbyists pay a higher price than the general public?
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft did.
AzuMao 18th Nov 2009
Before, it was assumed that they had to pay a
higher price just from the fact that buying an
OEM license costs a lot more per-license than
buying a bunch of OEM licenses in bulk like the
retailers do.

That alone already had hobbyists paying way more
for Windows than the people who bought pre-
builts.

But now on top of that, Microsoft is saying
hobbyists can't even use the OEM version, they
have to buy an ultra-expensive version that
costs even more!
0 Votes
+ -
Then they would in turn sue Microsoft for not issuing proper license agreements to them to properly disclose usage. then Microsoft would be force to stop distributing that type of software to store and only distribute full licenses to the store and start to loose more money that i would find funny.
0 Votes
+ -
Misguided
rarsa 16th Nov 2009
So are you one of those people that think that crossing a red light is only illegal if a traffic officer sees you?
0 Votes
+ -
No, and he says so
Barc777 16th Nov 2009
"given Microsoft?s complete breakdown in communicating with its customers."

They haven't suddenly and with no warning changed the laws regarding traffic signals.
0 Votes
+ -
No Law is broken,
arminw 16th Nov 2009
and a license to which TWO or more parties have not identifiably and
provably agreed to is not binding and does not have the force of law.
Just because someone clicks the mouse doesn't mean there is a
contract.

If you buy a legal copy of some software, you can do what you want
with it. They can call it a license if they want to, but it is really a sale.
A contract can only be entered into by two properly identified,
qualified people. Since an eight-year-old kid can buy and install
Windows 7 on any computer he/she wishes, there cannot be a legally
binding contract ever.

That is why Apple has never gone after Hackintosh home builders To
enforce their EULA, until Pystar has brazenly tried to make money on
Apple's property. These greedy folks who are just spanked in court
for distributing Apple's intellectual property, a clear violation of law.
0 Votes
+ -
You missed a point:
satovey@... 16th Nov 2009
The fact that on this issue, Microsoft is acting and communicating in conflicting and contrary ways; making it impossible for the end user to be clear as to what their policy is, means that Microsoft would not and could not win a suit in a court of law.
Unless of course, the opposing attorney was inept and irresponsible.
Wow! What a newsflash!

This hasn't been known for decades already, no no
no. This is totally new!
0 Votes
+ -
lol!
914four 19th Nov 2009
OK, I really did laugh about that, thank you AzuMao.
In support, I will once again provide the following link:http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf
If you aren't a fan of the EU see also the US version from 2002: http://www.consumerfed.org/pdfs/CFA_tunney_comments_20020125.pdf
0 Votes
+ -
Very interesting paper!
thegerman 19th Nov 2009
Thanks for the link. Very interesting paper. Never heard of theses guys (ECIS) before.
0 Votes
+ -
so why has anything change since then? nt
dougogd@... 13th Feb 2010
nt
0 Votes
+ -
Are you a lawyer?
topsidefarm@... 17th Nov 2009
Because I am, and you're dead wrong about two of your statements.

1. Clickwrap licenses are enforceable, at least in most courts. You enter the contract when you click the "i agree" button. Yes, there is a growing backlash, but I wouldn't bet on it in any specific case.
2. Just because an eight-year-old can perform the action does not mean that the action cannot lead to a contract. The only thing different about a minor doing it is that MS cannot enforce the contract, BUT THE KID CAN ENFORCE ANY RIGHTS HE HAS UNDER THE CONTRACT!

Now there are three points that have been raised throughout this discussion that do limit MS's ability to enforce its EULAs.

First, it is the words of the contract that matter, not what MS wants the to mean. The words will be given their "usual and customary" meaning. MS has serious problems with how many of its terms can be interpreted.

Second, all ambiguities are interpreted against the drafter. MS wrote the EULA, so any ambiguities go in our favor, any there have been plenty of them pointed out in this discussion.

The third is the concept of estopple: you can't say one thing then do another. Where MS and so many MS connected sites have stated policies contrary to what they are saying now, MS cannot enforce the new policies. This is the key difference with Appe's case. Apple just chose not to enforce. This does not limit future enforcement rights. MS, however, keeps changing its interpretation.
0 Votes
+ -
DING! DING! and DING!
Sephula Updated - 17th Nov 2009
Personally, I find it especially interesting that in the wording of the OEM license which appears on the package that is delivered with the OEM software in question and contained in section 4. Limited License which tells the System Builder that they may not use or run the software "Except as granted in [the] license..." A careful reading of this license appears to offer up licensing terms for its use by the System Builder, such as section 8. Disclaimer of All Warranties which informs the System Builder that licensed use of the software is provided without warranty. The term used to describe the user of the software is "You", and since the license is written for use by the System Builder, then the wording of the license may be resonably interpreted to provide licensed use to the System Builder, albeit without warranty. Section 12. Activation tells "you" (again, the System Builder) that "you" may use the software durring the period allowed until activation is required, and also thereafter relying upon whether you have activated it or not. This section also describes the activation process as Microsoft's means for enforcing their license agreements. If you follow the provided link upon activation, the Microsoft page which it directs you to informs you that by validating your activation attempt Microsoft is certifying that your copy of their software is "genuine", and that validated genuine copies of their software are certified as fully licensed, and entitled to support by Microsoft and its partners. Because of this, I think that a court could probably say that if Microsoft is providing the means for enforcement of their licenses through the activation process, and that by validating these activations Microsoft is guaronteeing certification of their software, then anyone with a validated copy of their software must be held to be within compliance with Microsoft's licensing terms. Am I wrong?

Also, to quote digitoxin1:
"The way I understand it, there are 2 license agreements that come with an OEM system builders copy of Windows. The system builders license and the end user license. By building a machine for yourself using an OEM copy, you are violating the system builders portion of the license, but as the end user, as long as your PC has the sticker with the key on it in the right place and you have the small manual and media that came with the OEM copy of Windows, you are licensed on that box. I haven't seen anything written that says the end user license is void if the system builder violated his portion of the license in any way."

I think digitoxin1 has a valid point. There is also nothing in the System Builder portion which forbids you from being held under the terms of the EULA despite whether or not you are either the system builder, or in any way violate your SBLA.

About that erroneous sticker placement stipulation, I'd like ask whether it can be held to be legally valid and binding in light of the fact that Microsoft neither enforces nor intends any enforcement of this unenforceable portion of their license agreements. The Microsoft license expressly provides the provision that an upgrade of any component is permissable under the terms of the EULA, and because the chassis is a component of the computer's make-up, then the EULA must cover it's replacement. However, if you've ever attempted to transfer that little sticker onto your replacement chassis, then you know as well as I know that you simply can't do that without destroying it. Microsoft appears to offer no remedy for this. Do they offer replacement stickers, and what are their requirements for the old sticker? So, what I'm saying is that by allowing you to replace the chassis under their license terms, but not supplying a means of doing so that won't invalidate your EULA, then Microsoft's only remedy would be to allow replacement of the chassis without tranferring the sticker to the replacement part, clearly violating their own agreement. A court might then conclude that because Microsoft is refusing to enforce their own policy by allowing you to do so, then Microsoft is essentially invalidating that portion of the agreement.

I also find it peculiar that you are required to affix the validation sticker onto the only component of the computer system's hardware which doesn't in any way contain, execute, interact with, or respond to commands from any portion of the software which the validation sticker is for. If I were to guess, I'd wager that the most reasonable component to affix this sticker to might be the computer's hard drive unit which the Operating System is installed to run on. However, how would that apply to those who run the software on systems in RAID config? Onto which disk should THEY affix Microsoft's label? I know you might suggest that the logical solution would be to use the disk which contains the OS's boot loader. That only seems appropriate if the boot loader can reside on only any one disk at a time, but that is not even the case. A person using their computer's hard drives in RAID config can easily install copies of the OS's boot loader onto each of the disk drives in that RAID config, or onto any other hard drive which is in any way connected to the computer whether it contains any portion of the OS or not, for the purpose of fault tolerance. So, what then IS the most relevant computer component onto which a EULA licensee could affix Microsoft's authenticity label that would provide the bearer with the ability to enforce any and all use of rights provided them under the licensing terms without in any incidental way voiding a portion thereof? Can you think of a single one? Me neither, and that is why I'm fairly certain that at least this portion of the EULA can't be reasonably held as valid and binding.

As far as I can tell, this spares Microsoft with only a single valid method for delivering their EULA licensing eligiabilty & certification to the End Users of their products, and the only method seems to be Microsoft's software activation process, itself. Please, defer to the above.
0 Votes
+ -
Autodesk got their EULA
arminw 17th Nov 2009
Invalidated. They tried to stop the sale of the software through their
EULA. Contracts do not invalidate the law. As a lawyer you should
know that. Laws take precedence over contracts. That is why Apple did
not try to enforce their EULA against Pystar, but brought up copyright
and the DMCA violations. The court agreed with them. All software
companies would desperately like to have their convoluted, so called
contracts enforced by the government. Basically, once a user has a
valid copy of some software, music, or other copyrightable material,
they can do whatever they like with it as long as they do not violate
any law. What the maker of the copyrighted material desires is
immaterial unless there is a valid contract entered into. Most EULAs
aren't even signed by a legal representative of the maker of such.

However, unless two or more legally qualified people specifically agree
in writing and signature, government will not enforce such a supposed
agreement. That is why agreements, those that carry weight, loans,
mortgages, business agreements etc. have signatures and are
notarized. If both I and Microsoft's legal representative put our
respective John Q. Henry's on a piece of paper, then that becomes a
legal contract enforceable in court.
0 Votes
+ -
So which law covers
SoSueMeThen Updated - 17th Nov 2009
putting one copy of Windows (or OS X) on 50 machines?

Your not duplicating the CD, nor modifying the code, nothing, you're just installing it on 50 machines, so copyright laws don't sound like they apply.

It sounds like you're saying that once you purchased one copy of Windows, you can install it on as many machines as you like, becuase the EULA is not valid.
0 Votes
+ -
To do so..
AzuMao 17th Nov 2009
..you would first have to circumvent the DRM
measures built-in to it, and that is
illegal.
0 Votes
+ -
I can't agree
SoSueMeThen 17th Nov 2009
Psystar was told (ruled against) that the EULA states that it can only be installed on an Apple branded product, so the EULA is a legal document.

And the parents of the eight year old would be held accountable, because it sounds like it really is a legal binding contract.
0 Votes
+ -
Wrong
JelMin 7th Dec 2009
In most of Europe, it's illegal to sell and then disclose the terms. That includes EULAs and terms hidden inside the wrapping, and that illegality is independant of any other form of contract, explicit or implit. MS is open to fines for various forms of fraudulent selling at national level end of story.
And yes, I am a lawyer.
I built my current desktop in July and purchased/installed an OEM version of Vista Home Premium. I also took advantage of Microsoft's free upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium (which I installed on the same PC). I'm glad that Microsoft is looking out for me regarding licensing.
0 Votes
+ -
Umm did you even read the article...
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 16th Nov 2009
technically what you have done is a violation of the EULA. Did you build the computer and then sell it back to yourself?
0 Votes
+ -
Microsoft's Stance
plovelace@... 16th Nov 2009
The stance Microsoft takes on this doesn't appear to have changed. Any brand new computer being built is able to use the OEM edition because the end user who is building it is considered to be a "system builder". Basically, if a PC has never had an OS, you can buy the OEM edition for it. In addition, the license is tied to the mainboard, so if you are replacing your mainboard then you are considered to be building a new system. This has been the case ever since Windows 95 and everything in this article supports this case.
0 Votes
+ -
OS is not "tied" to mainboard per se
Kiltedbear 16th Nov 2009
But actually tied to the hardware code generated by the OS upon installation based on the hardware present. The main board just trips the code check because so many on board hardware pieces are present. It's completely moot anyway because you you need to do is call them and tell them you changed your motherboard and they will reset your activations...big deal. If they made you buy a new copy each time you changed hardware, even main boards, the public would lynch them and they KNOW this.
0 Votes
+ -
support for OEM Win7
srguru 16th Nov 2009
I have just acquired from my assembler a newly put together unit with OEM Win 7 (64 bit). The only difference apparent is that it clearly states that the dealer, assembler, etc is the one to call for any support, and NOT MicroSoft - which effectively means you cannot call them when you need any authorization. Also, with the retail, you get both 32 @ 64 bit versions: only the one you installed with the OEM. Says something about how much support costs or is worth.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually...
fairportfan 16th Nov 2009
...if you upgrade a homebrew or white-box PC to the extent that it trips the authorisation check, you can call MS for a code to reset it.

Or, at least, you *could* a couple years back when i upgraded my own PC that had an OEM copy of XP.
0 Votes
+ -
You still can
Wintel BSOD 16th Nov 2009
Because I had to do it earlier this year.
0 Votes
+ -
software. If you call them and tell them your motherboard is broken and you need to replace it you are fine. If you upgrade your mobo then supposedly you won't be allowed to activate your copy.
Your results may vary.
0 Votes
+ -
patches installs, and critical errors, anything else you contact your vendor who will most likly point you to MS Knowledge Base.
0 Votes
+ -
System Builder Supports OEM OS
mc_rog46_sd1@... 22nd Nov 2009
I was going to point out this fact. The story claims that the only difference in an OEM is that you cannot transfer the license to another pc. While it is true that you cannot transfer the license to another pc, it is untrue that this is the only difference. Moreover, as you pointed out, the builder provides the support for the OEM version.
I know this is true for I have OEM copies of XP X64 Pro & Win 7 X64 Pro on my custom built pc. Additionally I believe this fact justifies the difference in price for the OEM as opposed to the full version.
0 Votes
+ -
clarification
GeoNOregon 15th Dec 2009
It's actually more than just the MB. M$ uses a code generated by the BIOS ID's of the various pieces of hardware installed in your system. If I remember correctly, if more than five, (three?), of those change, it triggers the validation.

The OEM license was originally tied to a MB and HD, but I was on NewEgg last week looking for another DVD-Burner and saw that a purchase of a burner qualified me to buy an OEM of Win7 - not bad for a 25.95 investment!

I was an 'OEM' from the beginning of the small system builder's program at M$ and saw it go thru all kinds of iterations. Like so many of the hardware manufacturers in the '90's they saw the almost 80% market share the 'white box' builders had and wanted a piece of it, hence the start of their 'OEM' program - before that the arrogant b%%^$^ds wouldn't even consider granting the privledge of paying money for certification unless you had two employees.

Personally, I changed to Open Office and have never been happier - the more M$ bloat ware I can dump, the better, it just eases my stress level when dealing with systems.

When someone creates the Google or Firefox of OS's, I'll gladly switch. But don't tell me linux is an option - I've tried it, it just ain't there...
0 Votes
+ -
What this article is saying, is that according
Snooki_smoosh_smoosh 16th Nov 2009
to the System Builders LA that in order for a custom computer build for yourself, to be used in conjunction with an OEM version of Windows, that you will need to purchase a full price retail copy of Windows. The OEM is only valid if you sell the computer.

What MS is basically saying here is that they don't want people going out an buying the OEM version of their software to upgrade their machines regardless if they are custom built or not, because they want full price.

Case in point the Full retail version is $199.99 for Home Premium, Upgrade is $119.99, and OEM is $109.99.

Savings are even more apparent when comparing Professional Edition, Full $299.99, Upgrade $199.99, and OEM is $149.99. And this is where the OEM version makes the most sense to buy. The OEM is half the price of the Full retail version, and is $50 cheaper that purchasing a retail upgrade.

The real case here is that MS just wants to squeeze out money where-ever they can. But again as I have said elsewhere imho, what would ms rather want. I can buy the retail for A custom machine, but I may not buy another copy of the their OS until there is a serious incentive to do so, although buying a retail copy also means that I can throw it into a VM on an Apple box or Linux box to run my games, and never buy a version of windows again.

The tighter MS makes its grip the more computer builders will go elsewhere. This is the problem with their licensing.
0 Votes
+ -
once again...
John N. Updated - 16th Nov 2009
Said blogger is just trying to stir up crap when he should just shut up.
There is NO issue! Is it in the people's best interest for MS to charge retail customers big bucks, when in certain parts of the world nobody pays for Windows anything?
I can only assume that said activity cannot be easily (or cheaply) stopped, so they pass their losses on to more controlled customer environments (unfairly, of course). So...

If there are loopholes in MS's anti-social end-user policies, I think they should be stretched to the max, and all those who need to should march right on in...
The words 'good faith' are not in the MS vocabulary, why should they expect different? Go get 'em while they can be got m' boys (& girls)!

MS, you wanna stop things like this? Then do this TOMORROW:
Win7 Premium- $50.00,
Win7 Pro $75.00,
Win7 Ultimate $100.00.
Full issues, not upgrades.
Add MS Office for $25.00 more.
How's that sound?
8*)
0 Votes
+ -
On Microsoft's OEM site...
Wyer 17th Dec 2009
OEM System Builder Software:

"Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party."

http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=563841
0 Votes
+ -
EULA schmoola..
arminw Updated - 16th Nov 2009
So what? The courts of this land are still concerned with laws and
contracts, neither of which were violated by not paying attention to
the reams of fine print that comes with software. Because an eight-
year-old can click a mouse, but not enter into valid contract, EULAs
are legally null and void. The reason all this dense legalese is still
incorporated in software packages, is because the majority of people
erroneously believe that it is legally binding. Baloney! Software is a
good that is sold like any other and recent court decisions have held
that to be the case. The defendant was given the right to sell the
software copies he had legally obtained, by any way he pleased,
including eBay, without regard to what was printed on the software
package.

Automobile analogy: Would a legal looking seal taped across the
ignition switch of a new car stating that the user agrees, upon
breaking the seal with the ignition key, to operate
this vehicle only on paved roads be valid?
0 Votes
+ -
I can cite an exception to this rule...
jhand47201 Updated - 16th Nov 2009
The recent trend in PC gaming, which IS software no matter how you slice it, has an install limit among other nasty things. Combined with flaky DRM software that has caused system crashes, hardware failures, and other nightmares requiring OS and other software to be reinstalled this stacks the deck against reaching the limit which is often set at 4. This says nothing of hardware failures potentially causing this limit to be exceeded. Where this plays into this conversation is that it makes reselling a game that has been played or isn't wanted anymore impossible and buying a used game incredibly risky. If the installation limit has been met it won't install. If the company releasing it is contacted -good luck figuring that one out- and the new owner's information doesn't match the person originally registering the software, it's a no-go. You may have the option to pay for a new license at full MSRP, a dumb move, or just end up totally SOL. The way these companies open and close, merge and change hands it is an impossible task to keep track or find who to contact. PC games are the ONLY product in the US I can think of that are purposely designed to limit the number of times the consumer can install them to use them. They are the only product prevented from being resold because of the install limits and other random requirements under the guise of anti-piracy protection. The ultimate irony is there has never been a game released with DRM that wasn't already cracked before it was officially released. Anybody remember when the music industry led by Garth Brooks campaigned against allowing people to sell or trade in old CDs? The music industry claimed they owned the intellectual rights to the content and the consumer only owned the physical media and was in effect, renting the content. So, in fact, consumers may have the right to do what they will with this software, burn it, shoot it, or nail it to a tree, but they can't honestly resell it because it is essentially rendered unusable. Average cost of a new PC game is $59.99 - $49.99. Some are a bit cheaper. It would be nice to be able to get $10 or $20 out of an old title to say nothing of the good turn it would do somebody who couldn't swing the full price when it was new. Imagine the outcry if you couldn't resell or trade in a car or sell an old appliance. Or if your car would only start a set number of times before you had to call the manufacturer and explain you needed it to start some more and prove it was still you who had it. These same software limitations don't apply to any gaming console software, just PC versions of the software. I know few probably care about PC games per se, but there's a principle here that is a precedent for all manner of ugliness. I'm surprised other software manufacturers haven't followed the same path.
0 Votes
+ -
DRM
roger andre 17th Nov 2009
What I don't get is why it's not OK to re-sell a PC game but fine for a console game.
0 Votes
+ -
Gee, where's NonZealot at?
Wintel BSOD 16th Nov 2009
Isn't he about due to blame Apple for all this?

lol.... grin
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Well it IS Apple's fault.
AzuMao Updated - 17th Nov 2009
I mean come on, that's a no-brainer. They suck,
and they aren't Microsoft, thus everything is
their fault. Can't let the blame fall on
Microsoft. That would be catastrophic; billions of
Neo-Luddites would get buyer's remorse!
0 Votes
+ -
a solution?!
som_phil09@... 9th Jan 2010
actually, that sounds like a solution... you could sell your home-built for $1 to a family member (or best buddy) who gifts it back to you, thus enforcing the legality of the EULA...
pretty sure that would hold up in court, given the massive confusion MS has created around this issue
>"Did you build the computer and then sell it back to >yourself?"

There's a novel idea! You build it, then take $1 from one pocket and put it in the other. There! you sold the computer to yourself, now everything is legal. :-))
0 Votes
+ -
Spot on, Ed.
quux 15th Nov 2009
MS have always been a bit conflicted and convoluted
about licensing issues. The EULA stuff is clear
enough, but it is the fine print. And the large print
(glossy marketing materials) very often contradicts
it.

Out here in the real world, most of us take our cues
from what MS actively *enforce* via lawsuits, WGA,
etc. Problem with that is, a contract is a contract -
and MS can change their enforcement policy anytime.
They could flip the switch on WGA back-end stuff any
day to a draconian enforcement scheme, and it would
hurt badly.

(Those of you who think it has been draconian in the
past, ain't really seen nothin' yet! It could very
easily get 10 times worse.)
0 Votes
+ -
if they do it its corporate suicide
Quebec-french 15th Nov 2009
lets not forget that MS have put a lot of bad
pressure on its user ... corporate user have at
this moment little choice ... they must use MS
...

on the home side ms is less and less a
obligation ...
Most user are doing web and mail a small percentage goes gaming....

So more and more slowly alternative seem great.
At some point someone will offer a nice
alternative my guest at the moment is neither
Oracle with the solaris /open solaris and
google with google os .

Both have deep pocket and Os is not there main
product . they could easily offer with a few
more buy a complete solution .

there also apple but its a bit expensive at
this moment if you compare to dell ( how the
hell they make money btw a computer a 299$)

SO i doubt MS will go medieval with the
licencing ... we are getting closer and closer
to a showdown between all the major player.
and there will be blood .
0 Votes
+ -
Obvious workaround is obvious:
ritchie909 24th Apr
I built a pc for a "clent", in this case my wife. She paid for the pc. The license terms dont specify any requirements for.transaction terms. So lets just say she paid for it by not kicking my butt when she found out.how much I spent on pc hardware. Then, she decided she'd rather have a new vaccum cleaner, and iI just happened to have purchased one I really didn't need. So we traded.

My next planned build is for a client who wants me to spend a few years testing the machine and working out.the kinks before.taking delivery. wink

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix