[jbrowning]

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?

[talmand]

If that's true then all they did was rename the full retail version and lowered the price.

I disagree with the quote though, no Windows license has been positive for its customers. It's one of the least friendly licenses that I've seen. For instance, attempting to tie the license to the hardware instead of the customer.

[dpark]

There's nothing in the non-OEM EULA that ties the license to the hardware so far as I know.

Edit/Disclosure: I do work for Microsoft, but my comments here by no means represent Microsoft. Also, I'm not a lawyer.

[talmand]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[dpark]

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

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