I cringe whenever I have to factor in the O.S when building a computer

[mikeymikec]

The commercial costly OS series, Microsoft Windows, or just an OS?

'Cause I can do everything but diagramming and gaming without Windows, and FOSS GUI diagramming software is getting better by leaps and bounds, these days. To me, the cost of Windows is entirely a video game support cost.

That's great for you, but I believe the OP was talking about the cost of Windows.

 

[lxskllr]

That's great for you, but I believe the OP was talking about the cost of Windows.

Too bad the OP can't think beyond the masses then, isn't it?

 

[Cerb]

That's great for you, but I believe the OP was talking about the cost of Windows.

So was I. Windows isn't needed for its own sake, or the hardware's sake. You don't need Windows to have a functional PC. It exists to run software on top of it, that was built to make use of its features. You need Windows, which costs X, if and only if at least one of the pieces of software you need to run requires Windows. It's not a requisite cost to building or using a PC, but to use some other software, which usually costs much more than the license of Windows.

 

[blankslate]

And will Windows 7 ever have 11.1 or 11.2? Nope. Windows 8 and 9 will. 7 IS a dead end, its 5yrs old and will soon be security support only (January 13, 2015 is end of mainstream support). All those pretty features won't be backported. It is foolish to buy a 5yr old OS for brand new Haswell system now or Skylake system in the future.

It won't ever have those but by the time those are required to run most of the games Windows 9 should be out.

Right now Win 7 is fine unless you need the capability to run the latest features in games.


I thought I made that point clear.

 

[kyrax12]

Ok I think I will get Windows 8 then.

Also whats the difference between this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&lp=1&cp=1





and This: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&lp=7&cp=1

 

[mikeymikec]

So was I. Windows isn't needed for its own sake, or the hardware's sake. You don't need Windows to have a functional PC. It exists to run software on top of it, that was built to make use of its features. You need Windows, which costs X, if and only if at least one of the pieces of software you need to run requires Windows. It's not a requisite cost to building or using a PC, but to use some other software, which usually costs much more than the license of Windows.

I wrote up a much longer response to begin with, thinking you were implying things when perhaps you're weren't, but if I take out the potential implications, your post boils down to "there are alternatives to Windows" and "most games require Windows", but those are stating the obvious to say the least. Unless you have an alternative OS that can run the games that the OP wants to run and is cheaper than Windows, I'm not sure this discussion can really go any further.

Ok I think I will get Windows 8 then.

Also whats the difference between this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&lp=1&cp=1

and This: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&lp=7&cp=1

The pages aren't very explicit in detail, but I would put a strong bet on that the more expensive one is the retail version. The two pieces of software are the same in terms of functionality, but the retail version allows you to transfer the licence to a new computer, whereas the OEM one is intended to be installed on only one computer build (specifically, tied to the motherboard, so you can still do a number of different upgrades, just not the board).

 

[Red Squirrel]

See if you can get windows 8 but with the option to use windows 7. Then just download a windows 7 ISO and use the serial number.

Though if money is really an issue I would either put on an eye patch, or go with Linux.

 

[Cerb]

I wrote up a much longer response to begin with, thinking you were implying things when perhaps you're weren't, but if I take out the potential implications, your post boils down to "there are alternatives to Windows" and "most games require Windows", but those are stating the obvious to say the least.

Another way of looking at it is, think of all the interesting things you could do with the computer without the operating system!

So obvious you left out the existence of other OSes, which do allow you to do many interesting things with the computer.

You can't do much without an OS. But you can do almost everything but play modern commercial video games, run modern commercial content creation software, or run frustrating vertical market applications, with OSes that don't cost you money.

But, if you need to do any of those things, they will end up costing much more, either up front, or over the PC's life, dwarfing the cost of the Windows license. When the CPU matches, at worst, but typically dwarfs, the cost of the Windows license, and the GPU does the same, then the set of games do the same, how is it that Windows' price is a particular problem?

See if you can get windows 8 but with the option to use windows 7. Then just download a windows 7 ISO and use the serial number.

Windows 8.1 Professional . That would also allow you install 8.1 later, and use the 8.1 license for upgrade purposes. I plan to use 7 until they fix the GUI, but I wouldn't buy 7, today.

 

[mikeymikec]

So obvious you left out the existence of other OSes, which do allow you to do many interesting things with the computer.

I'm also covering up the existence of Macs, Chromebooks, laptops, smart phones and tablets! My god, how biased am I? </sarcasm>

Did it really need stating? What are the chances of someone who knows how to build their computer and yet doesn't know of the existence of UNIX variants? For example, I'm not sure I've ever read a post on the AT forums that suggested that someone wasn't aware of at least some UNIX variants, and that a key fact about a heck of a lot of these variants is that they're free. It's probably the first fact that someone who might be inclined to dabble with different operating systems would learn.

The OP specifically referred to gaming, which immediately limits the choice of OS significantly especially when they also referred to the cost of the OS. I was staying on topic. Are you? What you're doing would be like me going on to a thread about what the cheapest version of MSO is available that includes Outlook and singing LibreOffice's praises on the thread despite the fact that it doesn't include an equivalent of Outlook.

 

[Cerb]

What you're doing would be like me going on to a thread about what the cheapest version of MSO is available that includes Outlook and singing LibreOffice's praises on the thread despite the fact that it doesn't include an equivalent of Outlook.

No, it wouldn't be. First, Evolution is the alternative to Outlook, and not part of LibreOffice. However, it's a grudingly-functional clone to connect to Exchange, in reality. For the most part, we geeks don't even want an equivalent to Outlook, which is probably a large part of why there isn't one.

Secondly, it would be more like going into that thread and saying, "if you must have Outlook, it's $80 or more. That's not too much, because you'll waste more than $80 of your time without it, plus you're not complaining about having to spend so much for everything else you're buying." You seem to be completely ignoring the last part, which has been included in all the replies, in some form.

 

[mikeymikec]

We're going around in circles, and you missed my point. I think everything has been said that needed to be said with regard to UNIX variants and gaming.

 

[Morbus]

Imagine what you can do without a keyboard and mouse.

Or without a screen.

Or without electricity!

Or without an internet connection.

Or without your eyes. Must include those in the budget too!

 

[VirtualLarry]

When I heard about Windows 7, and downloaded the pre-release version and ran it on my main machine for a few months, I decided that was the OS for me.

So when Newegg and Amazon.com offered pre-orders of the upgrade retail copies, I snagged as many as I could for 50% off list.

And then when MS came out with the Family Packs of retail upgrade licenses, I snagged as many of those as I could afford as well.

I still have some licenses left, and I've got enough licenses to cover all of my machines.

 

[88keys]

I buy one legal copy of an OS for all of my rigs. I know it's not allowed, but I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, one license should entitle the owner to use it on at least 3 PCs. I shouldn't have to buy a new license for every machine, nor should I have to buy one for every new motherboard.

 

[bbhaag]

Ok I think I will get Windows 8 then.

Also whats the difference between this: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&amp;lp=1&amp;cp=1





and This: http://www.bestbuy.com/site/windows-...8002&amp;lp=7&amp;cp=1

The pages aren't very explicit in detail, but I would put a strong bet on that the more expensive one is the retail version. The two pieces of software are the same in terms of functionality, but the retail version allows you to transfer the licence to a new computer, whereas the OEM one is intended to be installed on only one computer build (specifically, tied to the motherboard, so you can still do a number of different upgrades, just not the board).

Yep this pretty much nailed it. The OEM version is intended for one machine only and is non transferable even if the machine dies. The retail version can be transferred to as many machines as you like without issue.

 

[TerryMathews]

Yep this pretty much nailed it. The OEM version is intended for one machine only and is non transferable even if the machine dies. The retail version can be transferred to as many machines as you like without issue.

Incorrect. OEM license states that in the case of repair, the same model motherboard must be used if available .

 

[nickbits]

I assume people just reuse their existing licensees. I reuse mine. Sometimes I have to call ms activation. "How many computers is that key used on". One. Done.

 

[88keys]

You could always back up your existing activation. With Win7 (maybe vista) it's easier just to make a system image after installing drivers and updates.

 

[Morbus]

I buy one legal copy of an OS for all of my rigs. I know it's not allowed, but I don't care. As far as I'm concerned, one license should entitle the owner to use it on at least 3 PCs. I shouldn't have to buy a new license for every machine, nor should I have to buy one for every new motherboard.

Might aswell save yourself the trouble and the money and don't buy any. If you're gonna do it illegally, do it properly. That's like jumping the red light by just two seconds: the cops will still fine you, even though "no one was coming!".

 

[Imaginer]

@Cerb, I feel you have a reasonable point that counters the OP's title.

You have it right that over time, and in all perspective, the hardware AND software running with the OS, dwarfs the OS cost over time and immediately.

Given a point, my Steam library is over 10 times the cost of my OS put on it. Even being as generous (to the viewpoint of the OP) with two major Windows upgrades, that is normally around 5 times the cost of my Steam library. (Assuming around full price of 7 and 8/8.1 upgrades)

That is just GAMES.

Hardware? My PC hovers around just as much in disparity. looking at between 10 to 20 times the cost with respect to the OS (with good hardware).

On the other side of the pond, I gladly use and paid for an Autodesk license for a design suite. You want perspective in costs? That suite can range from over 30 to 60 times if not more so. Even Visual Studio Professional ranges to 5 times the cost of the OS (which allows for expanded capability in relative to the Express Editions.

Free software? Nothing is free. Not even the time that "free software" is made of. If one wants to implement a one-man band of a custom software implementation, they are prepared to pay in time and effort, which over time, may not be worth it if you need capabilities immediately or close to immediate. Never mind the immense development cycle and management for existing software out there that they have to go through.

This is not taking into account the learning curve of any software solution either.

If I could, I would save time and hassle to find the right suite for my needs and use it. Programming is a bitch and especially in OS work where there are many things to account for, and software to run on top of it.

Just because software is up in the air, that doesn't mean that there is no effort in acquiring them (monetary or the user's own time directly).

 

[Subyman]

I move my current windows to my new machine and decommission the old one. Whenver MS comes out with a new OS, I do a cheap upgrade. As long as you aren't using the copy on two computers concurrently, I believe you are good to go. I haven't move to Windows 8, so I don't know if the licensing has changed.

 

[Imaginer]

I move my current windows to my new machine and decommission the old one. Whenver MS comes out with a new OS, I do a cheap upgrade. As long as you aren't using the copy on two computers concurrently, I believe you are good to go. I haven't move to Windows 8, so I don't know if the licensing has changed.

Still the same as I treated 7 before.

Can I transfer the software to another computer or user? You may transfer the software to another computer that belongs to you. You may also transfer the software (together with the license) to a computer owned by someone else if a) you are the first licensed user of the software and b) the new user agrees to the terms of this agreement. To make that transfer, you must transfer the original media, the certificate of authenticity, the product key and the proof of purchase directly to that other person, without retaining any copies of the software. You may use the backup copy we allow you to make or the media that the software came on to transfer the software. Anytime you transfer the software to a new
computer, you must remove the software from the prior computer. You may not transfer the software to share licenses between computers. You may transfer Get Genuine Windows software, Pro Pack or Media Center Pack software only together with the licensed computer.

http://download.microsoft.com/Docum...lish_ca383862-45cf-467e-97d3-386e0e0260a6.pdf

In my case, since I upgraded from 7, my 7 keys should no longer be any good since it is an upgrade to 8, 8 superseding my license of 7 to 8. If I were to transfer the OS from another motherboard (essentially a new PC), then both the Windows 7 disc and Windows 8 upgrade keys need to go with it. I cannot use the Windows 7 keys in addition as another stand alone install. (And this is how upgrades generally work with other software)

 

[ViRGE]

Still the same as I treated 7 before.



http://download.microsoft.com/Docum...lish_ca383862-45cf-467e-97d3-386e0e0260a6.pdf

In my case, since I upgraded from 7, my 7 keys should no longer be any good since it is an upgrade to 8, 8 superseding my license of 7 to 8. If I were to transfer the OS from another motherboard (essentially a new PC), then both the Windows 7 disc and Windows 8 upgrade keys need to go with it. I cannot use the Windows 7 keys in addition as another stand alone install. (And this is how upgrades generally work with other software)

Keep in mind that that's for Windows 8, not 8.1. 8.1 went back to the bad old days; OEM licenses are locked to the machine they were installed on, and only retail licenses can be moved.

 

[88keys]

Might aswell save yourself the trouble and the money and don't buy any. If you're gonna do it illegally, do it properly. That's like jumping the red light by just two seconds: the cops will still fine you, even though "no one was coming!".

It's mainly so that I don't have to use hacks or workarounds on other PCs.

 

[Morbus]

Those hacks and workarounds are, in my experience, infinitely easier to use than a windows key...

My argument is you should obey Microsoft's moronic terms of service, or not buy from them at all.