jim wrote:[color=blue]
> Just in case you haven't heard, Vista PCs have been de-activating when a
> user does something as simple *and neccessary* as updating device drivers.
>
> Check out this article (found at
> [url]http://apcmag.com:80/vista_activation/[/url]).....
> _________________________________________________
> WARNING: device driver updates causing Vista to deactivate - by James Bannan
> After weeks of gruelling troubleshooting, I've finally had it confirmed by
> Microsoft Australia and USA -- something as small as swapping the video card
> or updating a device driver can trigger a total Vista deactivation.
>
> Put simply, your copy of Windows will stop working with very little notice
> (three days) and your PC will go into "reduced functionality" mode, where
> you can't do anything but use the web browser for half an hour.
>
> You'll then need to reapply to Microsoft to get a new activation code.
>
> How can this crazy situation occur? Read on for the sorry tale.
>
> The Problem
> Just over a month ago I swapped over the graphics card on my Vista Ultimate
> box. There were some new DirectX 10-based titles out and I couldn't get the
> benefit on my old DirectX 9 card. The swap-over went well and I went on my
> merry gaming way.
>
> Then a few days ago I got a Windows Activation prompt - I had three days to
> activate Windows or I'd be bumped back to RFM (Reduced Functionality Mode).
> What the? My copy of Vista was activated, and a graphics card change shouldn't
> have triggered deactivation... surely!
>
> I was able to reactivate easily enough, although as the product key was
> already in use (by me!) I couldn't reactivate automatically, but had to
> speak to a Microsoft customer service representative.
>
> I got the code easily enough, but it didn't explain why Vista had
> deactivated, so I got in touch with Microsoft about the problem.
>
> They sent me some special utilities to run which gathered the history of
> hardware changes on that machine since activation, and it turns out that my
> disk controller had changed, so the graphics card change was the final
> change which tripped deactivation.
>
> The only problem? I had never changed my disk controller at any point.
> Apparently because I had upgraded the Intel Matrix Storage Manager
> application, this was reported as a major hardware change event.
>
> On their own, neither event was enough to trigger deactivation, but
> cumulatively they were.
>
> The Activation Process
> The documentation is still being updated by Microsoft, but the activation
> process for Windows Vista and Volume Activation 2.0 is essentially unchanged
> from Windows XP, except that with Vista it's supposed to be more tolerant.
>
> When the machine is first activated, Windows establishes a baseline based on
> the installed hardware, but interestingly the information is not gathered
> from hardware IDs (which are not necessarily unique), but from hardware
> information as reported by device drivers. Any changes away from this
> baseline are weighted depending on the change (for example, a new CPU counts
> much higher than new RAM) and once the baseline threshold is passed, Windows
> deactivates and a new activation request is generated.
>
> The problem with using device drivers as the basis for activation
> information is that a change in the driver model which has the result of
> changing the way that the hardware information is reported back to Windows
> can be enough to register as a physical hardware change.
>
> For example, if you install and activate Vista using some Microsoft drivers
> downloaded from Windows Update (which is a very common practice) but then
> discover that a manufacturer driver gives better functionality (as is often
> the case for audio, video, storage and network drivers) you are running the
> risk that the drivers use different reporting models and will register as a
> physical change.
>
> So what this essentially means is that keeping your drivers up-to-date is a
> potentially very risky process, with all changes monitored and changes
> weighted cumulatively.
>
> The Problem with Activation
> As most tech enthusiasts would be aware, activation (and particularly Volume
> Activation 2.0 which is applied to every version of Vista available), is
> designed for one thing - to curb piracy.
>
> The idea is that Windows monitors the hardware it's installed on, and if you
> create an image of an activated machine and drop it onto another system, it
> will re-register the hardware serial number changes (via the drivers) and
> realise that it's been installed on a different system.
>
> Of course, Microsoft needs to be able to protect its software. Piracy of
> Microsoft products is rampant and while many people find that amusing,
> no-one denies the company's right to do something about it. However, it hasn't
> worked. At least, it would have worked for Vista had not Microsoft bowed to
> pressure from OEMs to allow an activation loophole, which was quickly
> exploited.
>
> Volume Activation 2.0 has not yet been cracked, but now it doesn't need to
> be. There's an official workaround for OEMs and the result is that anyone
> with a few minutes to spare can download a fully-functional pirated copy of
> Vista Ultimate (32-bit and 64-bit versions) which needs neither product key
> nor activation.
>
> So pirates haven't been slowed down at all, and the rest of us -- the
> legitimate purchasers -- are left to live with Windows Activation. You
> really need to ask the question - who's benefiting here? Certainly not
> users, and given the amount of discontent this is likely to cause, arguably
> not Microsoft either.
>
> In its attempts to combat piracy, Microsoft has created a system which doesn't
> focus on the problem correctly. After all, how do you define piracy? At its
> most basic level, piracy occurs when you install software on a machine when
> you aren't licensed to do so. But the Windows Activation model isn't
> designed to address this particular problem - as far as Windows Activation
> is concerned, there's no difference between someone who tries to image two
> machines with the same activated version of Windows, and a legitimate user
> who wants to upgrade their system.
>
> If you buy a retail version of Vista, as long as you're not breaking the
> terms of the license, then surely it's none of Microsoft's business what you
> do with that software. Legitimate users shouldn't be monitored and
> inconvenienced to this extent.
>
> The Solution?
> There's no denying that Windows Activation has a serious image problem. Not
> only is it inconvenient and cumbersome, but it creates a very strong
> impression in the user's mind that Microsoft doesn't really want to give you
> the software you paid for.
>
> There are things going on under the hood which have nothing to do with you
> and which you're not privy to, and, as I found out, it will affect you if
> you make an innocent wrong move such as updating too many device drivers.
>
> Additionally, it has been completely bypassed by pirates, so the one group
> it's aimed at is sailing blissfully past in a wonderful world where
> activation doesn't exist.
>
> At the very least, Microsoft needs to empower users in relation to
> activation, by involving them a bit more. Perhaps users could have a way of
> monitoring their cumulative changes, or maybe there could be some method
> where you could be informed when installing a device driver that it is
> contributing to your activation totals.
>
> Ultimately, what annoys users more than anything is having something forced
> on them, and Windows Activation is absolutely one of those areas which
> causes a great deal of frustration and outrage.
>
> APC has passed all this feedback back to Microsoft, which, to its credit, is
> taking the situation very seriously and has Vista developers working on a
> solution.
>
> Apparently there are changes underway to make the whole experience more
> user-friendly. We certainly hope so. It's absolutely in Microsoft's interest
> to make those changes as widely known as possible. We'll post information
> about that once it's available.
>
> _________________________________________________
>
>
> Pretty soon we may see a new verb in our vernacular...
>
> vis.ta'd pronounced [vis-tuhd]
> -verb
> 1. to be taken advantage of by a larger, more powerful adversary.
> 2. to be victimized through theft by deception.
> 3. to be forced into a situation by a monopoly, dictator or government
> power.
>
> jim
>
>[/color]

The above is why I checked out Open Source. As the article so eloquently
points out, MS' anti piracy programs only inconvenience the paying
customer and do nothing to stop piracy. These programs don't do much for
MS' reputation either.

--
Alias

To email me, remove shoes