The OEM version of windows seems like the perfect choice for me, since I do not plan on contacting MS for support(and never have), I am technically a “system builder”, and its way cheaper than the retail version. But I am in doubt, does anyone know if its actually legal for me to buy and use the OEM version of windows 7? The oem version I am talking about can be found here, it costs a $100 as opposed to the retail version that goes for $177.
No, the OEM version is intended for resale systems only. They changed it for 7. You can read it right here (pdf). The important sections are 2 and 4.
However, Microsoft really doesn’t care, otherwise they wouldn’t make it available to the public. If they really cared, they would only sell through Microsoft with proof you were a true manufacturer.
You will not get support from Microsoft and as I understand it, you won’t get the next Windows version as an upgrade, you’ll need to buy full price.
I have been running OEM Win7 for 6 months with no problems, it installed and verified fine and I get regular patches with no fuss.
/slight hijack
My local computer store offered to upgrade my system to windows 7 (with disk) for approx. this price and I did originally buy the system from him. What are the disadvantages of OEM anyway? Are all the updates, etc… still available?
I have 18 years of working with Windows and never had to contact Microsoft for support and can fix most problems myself. So is it worth it?
OEM represents a large market for Microsoft. It’s easy money for them because they are not responsible for any customer support.
Anyone that builds a PC is a “system builder”. Perhaps on a small scale, but you are buying hardware and assembling it. OEM is for systems like that.
I just bought the system builder’s version from New Egg for $ 99 instead of the full version with support; I think it was about twice the amount of the SB version. I even installed it on a laptop. I have never relied on Microsoft for support.
Palooka, IANAL, but I really do not see how those sections say it cannot be used for this purpose.
The sections you mention seem to refer to the distributor.
When I have bought OEM versions in the past it was always from suppliers that sold pc components for builders but also built custom systems for sale. You had to by pc components for a system such as a motherboard, hard drive or CPU, with the purchase, but they do not even seem to require that any more.
You still pay good money for the product, especially considering you can buy a cheap notebook or system (from the same guys that sell you the OEM package) for a couple hundred dollars more. These windows versions are sold by high profile online computer retailers like Newegg and NCIX. These guys move a lot of merchandise and are not clandestine operations. You can bet that staff there are on a first name basis with staff in both sales and technical support at Microsoft. I suspect they have a legal department or retained lawyers that check this stuff.
This is splitting hairs. There are morally ambiguous and questionable practices all around us that we are involved in through our daily interactions with greater visible harm than this. There is no harm in this, it is legitimate and up front and all parties involved are compensated as requested. It is a good thing.
Load up Ubuntu if you are really worried. Its free.
Back when I built a few PCs, I remember newegg.com always had a link from their Windows OEM page to their absolutely cheapest component, generally a very short power cable of some sort, that was always on sale for 1 cent. If you bought that, you could buy the OEM software.
This has been open to debate since Windows 7 agreement came out
As others have said, you certainly CAN do this, but is it legal?
Prior to Windows 7 you could use OEM O/S. My Vista EULA says
If I look at my EULA for my Win7 machines this section is not to be found anywhere
The OEM Builders License Agreement for Win 7 by omitting this, thus renders it to say you can only use an OEM edition of Win7 in a system you are building for re-sale, and you must meet the other conditons of the EULA for Win7 Microsoft Builder’s License (note: PDF File)
This is where the debate starts. I mean I suppose you could build the system and sell it to yourself, or you kid or wife or dog and get around that. Google around and you’ll see this debate has been going on since Win7 became commerically available
So clearly you can use an OEM and it’ll work, but should you?
My Windows 7 Pro OEM was sold to me retail as Microcenter, without any additional hardware purchase required. “Building” my system consisted of partitioning the hard drive and running the Boot Camp installer. Really, that’s building in my book. I created something better (a partitioned hard drive) from something lesser (a non-partitioned hard drive).
This came up a while ago, and the Windows 7 OEM license explicitly states that the OEM may only be used for a system which is intended to be sold to a third party. If you build your own computer, you should buy the retail version.
However, being that they have not been very open about this change, and it is a change, and they don’t seem at all interested in enforcing it, I don’t see fit to worry about it.
This is making less and less sense, if I put together a computer, put Windows 7 OEM on it, sell it to my brother for 1 cent and then buy it back from him for 1 cent would that suddenly be legit? Has MS ever sued anyone over this? Why do they have to make it so hard for me to give them my money?
They’re not making it hard to give them your money. It’s just that they want more of it.
I would say because this opens the possiblity for them to do something about it in the future. By being ambiguous about it, they leave the door open.
If they shut the door by saying “Don’t do this” they’d be cutting themselves off from sales. Well people would still do it anyway, but as you can see they can still make money from OEM sales and leave the door open to change it if they find a reason to.
Section 4 says that you cannot do anything with the software except what the license allows and the only thing that the license allows is to distribute the software after a pre-installation. Section 2 says that the only person allowed to do that is a “System builder” which is defined as someone who does stuff for machines intended for third parties.
Installing it on your own machine means you’re not a “System Builder” and you’re not acting within what’s authorized by section 4.
The enforceability of this kind of language is murky at best. If these particular terms went to court (they won’t), it’d be a 50/50 shot.
IANAL, but I suspect that by being ambiguous and not enforcing things, they’re making it harder to do something about it in the future.
And so if you’re a legitimate system builder (say, you own your own shop), and you build a computer intended for your own use?
You’re not wrong but on VISTA the agreement stated:
It’s very clear on Vista and O/S before you WERE a system builder.
OK now notice on Win7 MS only removed the language. They didn’t specifically that no longer applies. What about if you build a system under Vista (which is legal) and then upgrade it to Win7?
This means one could argue it still applies, because it was an established policy that wasn’t specifically refuted
Again, you’re not wrong either…
Deliberate ambiguity is applied mostly to foreign policy but is also used by companies. This just leaves the door open to profit on both sides of the fence.
You may be correct they are making it harder but hard is just that, it doesn’t mean un-doable.
The thing is all of you who have had opinions on this thread are right. You’re also all wrong, because there is not “right” answer.
Just google this quesiton, you’ll find a hundred pages, with this question and people debating it. Both making good arguments for and against it.
And let’s face it. Win7 was released to general public in Oct 2009, this O/S is over a year old, and older in development.
There are hundreds of websites debating this issue. MS isn’t stupid, they obviously know this is an issue. MS employs some of the best legal minds around. If it was REALLY an issue for them, they would’ve taken steps to correct it and close it and resolve the issue by now.
This is really a great debate. Is it legal, like the OP asked? Probably not, but probably not means probably so as well. And we’re back to square one.
Wait a minute… I finally got off my butt and looked at the license referred to above. As suggested, these are the two key parts:
Also take note of the title: MICROSOFT OEM SYSTEM BUILDER LICENSE
This is not an end-user license agreement (EULA). It’s distribution license. These terms apply to whomever sells you the software, not to you as the consumer. So in my case, a major United States chain (Microcenter) is breaking this license by not pre-installing on a system prior to distributing to me. (Although since Microsoft is selling to Microcenter, presumably they know that OEM versions are being sold at retail.) Once the software passes into my possession, I’m free to do what I want with it, as long as I follow the EULA (privity).
However the one thing that I still have a slight doubt about is what the consumer responsibility is when he’s paid for and received something in good faith from a distributor that’s misbehaved. Any one have any case law references for such a circumstance?