Announcing Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 16215 PC + 15222 Mobile Insider

wen said:

Thanks Kari,
i wanted to use Version 199 on drive 0 (C) the SSD and all future Insider builds, starting with 215 on drive 1 (D) the HDD. I want C to be SLOW Ring and D the FAST Ring, my "experimental" Insider drive.

Do I still need another License Key for D ??

I do not see how @Kari could have made it clearer.

The answer is "No".

wen said:

Thanks Kari,
i wanted to use Version 199 on drive 0 (C) the SSD and all future Insider builds, starting with 215 on drive 1 (D) the HDD. I want C to be SLOW Ring and D the FAST Ring, my "experimental" Insider drive.

Do I still need another License Key for D ??

No. As long as you have a digital license for a specific edition, let's for example's sake say W10 PRO on your PC, all your W10 PRO installations on that PC will be automatically activated without an additional product key needing to be used, based on that machine's digital signature.

This applies to every possible multiboot scenario, regardless if for instance one of your multiboot installations of the same edition is Anniversary Update version 1607 build 14393, another is Creators Update version 1703 build 15063, a third one Insider Preview build 16215 in fast ring, and yet one Insider Preview build 16170 in slow ring. All these four W10 PRO installations would be automaticaly activated without any additional licenses as long as the machine has an existing digital license for W10 PRO, and only difference in hardware in all four installations would be the HDD / SSD other hardware remaining the same.

Kari

Well installing 16125 in a vm and it is taking forever - far longer than normal by factor of ten. What is going on?

I think we will be referring back to this build for many weeks to come. I fully accept we have to expect bugs, but something seems to have gone wrong big time with MS internal procedures. I would be sacking culpable people if they were part of my team, and if as a leader, I was culpable if I was aware of issues, I would expect to be sacked as well!

badrobot said:

I don't wanna think she's having a free ride on the neighbor's wifi... hahaha... just kidding @Wynona.

Nope, Robot. No free rides here. I'm in my daughter's dwelling; the Mother-in-Law apartment, if you will. All perfectly legal. And no Ethernet connections! We're not going to string a 25 or 30' line from her router to my part of the house.

Wynona said:

Nope, Robot. No free rides here. I'm in my daughter's dwelling; the Mother-in-Law apartment, if you will. All perfectly legal. And no Ethernet connections! We're not going to string a 25 or 30' line from her router to my part of the house.

My suggestion, since internet is a basic needs these days, is just to get your own ISP. I am sure you will enjoy the fast speeds since you do download a lot. If you have a home phone (landline), cut it off and spend the money for your own internet and get free VOIP services (with initial fee of course). That's what I did. I cut off my landline and used the money to upgrade my internet subscription and got a VOIP service with an initial investment of $150 including the porting of my landline number so I can continue using the same number. Since then (7 years ago), I am not paying a cent for a landline anymore. :)

HippsieGypsie said:

I see Wyn is offline. I'll let her speak for herself, but I think she picks up WiFi from her daughter's house next door. If that's true, I think a WiFi booster/repeater/extender might be the solution. Either that, or bury a cable from house to house.

Kinda, sorta, Hippsie. I guess it can be a house or built-in apartment (I mostly call it a house), but we're so close as not to matter. Also, as a FYI, Son-in-Law is a retiree of the ISP, so has lots and lots of unlimited perks such as this one. There are no houses any closer than 1,000 feet and the WiFi is secured.

I've never seen a need to have same OS in dual boot but with this kind of licensing without distinct serial, licensing any computer as a device and giving Digital entitlement to a "device" where you can use only one installation at a time, I can't see a way for them to deny that arrangement. MS made those rules, nobody pushed them for it. If they don't want to clarify it further, so be it.
On the surface of it, it may look that they shot themselves in the foot but as long as they insist on it....
Going even further, they made it easier to transfer OS to another major component (MB, practically another computer) and that's going even further than using multiple windows of same kind on a single device.