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

When you can grasp reality again, Frank, or whatever your real name is,
let me know.
[color=blue]
> These programs don't do much for[color=green]
>> MS' reputation either.
>>[/color][/color]


--
Alias

To email me, remove shoes