Alias wrote:[color=blue]
> Frank wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Alias wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> jim wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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=green]
>> These programs don't do much for
>>[color=darkred]
>>> MS' reputation either.
>>>[/color][/color]
>
>[/color]