Alias wrote:[color=blue]
> jim wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 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.[/color]

Horsesh*t!
You don't know what you're talking about.
Frank
These programs don't do much for[color=blue]
> MS' reputation either.
>[/color]