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

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

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]

"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
news:fNvTi.5988$c9.453@bignews8.bellsouth.net...[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.
>
> 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]


1. They made you buy Vista ?
2. They make you use Vista ?
3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here. They do make you pay
taxes...you got that right.

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

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]

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]
Frankly [sic], I wouldn't want anything to do with your brand of self
delusional reality.
Frank, my REAL name.

"forty-nine" <49@linux.sux> wrote in message
news:OzjdvbdFIHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:fNvTi.5988$c9.453@bignews8.bellsouth.net...[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.
>>
>> 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]
>
>
> 1. They made you buy Vista ?[/color]

monopoly
[color=blue]
> 2. They make you use Vista ?[/color]

monopoly
[color=blue]
> 3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here.[/color]

just a monopoly

jim wrote:[color=blue]
> "forty-nine" <49@linux.sux> wrote in message
> news:OzjdvbdFIHA.4296@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>[color=green]
>>"jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>news:fNvTi.5988$c9.453@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>>[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.
>>>
>>>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]
>>
>>
>>1. They made you buy Vista ?[/color]
>
>
> monopoly[/color]

[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
>>2. They make you use Vista ?[/color]
>
>
> monopoly
>
>[color=green]
>>3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here.[/color]
>
>
> just a monopoly
>[/color]

Too bad you couldn't afford a brain.
Idiot.
Frank[color=blue]
>[/color]

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400, jim wrote:
[color=blue]
> 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.[/color]

Ah, but that's not true. Arguably Microsoft DOES benefit.

Whoever wrote this article doesn't seem to understand the big picture.
Chinese users are accustomed to getting their Windows OS for free.
Microsoft is afraid that if they can't get Vista for free, they'll
migrate towards Linux. It wouldn't do to have Linux computers become
dominant in the world's soon-to-be-biggest economy, would it? So,
Microsoft provides a "workaround" that committed software pirates can
exploit, while at the same time putting honest users in a vise to squeeze
out the last possible drop of licensing revenue.

It's called "screwing your best customers." It only works for so long,
which is why Microsoft's star is on the wane.

Charlie

"Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
news:O4W8lneFIHA.5544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue][color=green][color=darkred]
>>>3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here.[/color][/color][/color]
[color=blue][color=green]
>> just a monopoly[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Too bad you couldn't afford a brain.
> Idiot.
> Frank[/color]

Well Frank, you claim to have one; but, it must have been from the bargain
rack because it doesn't work properly.

Not Me wrote:[color=blue]
> "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
> news:O4W8lneFIHA.5544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>>3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here.[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>>just a monopoly[/color][/color]
>
>[color=green]
>>Too bad you couldn't afford a brain.
>>Idiot.
>>Frank[/color]
>
>
> Well Frank, you claim to have one; but, it must have been from the bargain
> rack because it doesn't work properly.
>
>[/color]


Oh I love brilliant as*hole's like you (what ever in the fukk your name
is) who think they can call the market yet don't have a pot to piss in
nor a window to throw it out of...hahaha...lol!
Losers.
Frank

Funny, you don't see me calling people idiots because they don't agree with
me.
As far as I have ever seen, it takes one to know one.
You're so far beyond reality it's funny.

"Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
news:%23uJIjagFIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Not Me wrote:[color=green]
>> "Frank" <fb@osspan.clm> wrote in message
>> news:O4W8lneFIHA.5544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>>3.They still make you use it ? No dictator here.[/color]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>>just a monopoly[/color]
>>
>>[color=darkred]
>>>Too bad you couldn't afford a brain.
>>>Idiot.
>>>Frank[/color]
>>
>>
>> Well Frank, you claim to have one; but, it must have been from the
>> bargain rack because it doesn't work properly.[/color]
>
>
> Oh I love brilliant as*hole's like you (what ever in the fukk your name
> is) who think they can call the market yet don't have a pot to piss in nor
> a window to throw it out of...hahaha...lol!
> Losers.
> Frank[/color]

"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.10.24.05.52.56@users.easynews.com...[color=blue]
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400, jim wrote:
>[color=green]
>> 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.[/color]
>
> Ah, but that's not true. Arguably Microsoft DOES benefit.
>
> Whoever wrote this article doesn't seem to understand the big picture.
> Chinese users are accustomed to getting their Windows OS for free.
> Microsoft is afraid that if they can't get Vista for free, they'll
> migrate towards Linux. It wouldn't do to have Linux computers become
> dominant in the world's soon-to-be-biggest economy, would it? So,
> Microsoft provides a "workaround" that committed software pirates can
> exploit, while at the same time putting honest users in a vise to squeeze
> out the last possible drop of licensing revenue.
>
> It's called "screwing your best customers." It only works for so long,
> which is why Microsoft's star is on the wane.[/color]

I still can't understand why Microsoft hasn't learned the lesson that razor
and printer manufacturers have long ago...give away the OS and sell the apps
to make it useful.

It's like giving away the razor and selling the blades or giving away the
printers and selling the ink cartridges.

Besides, if the OS was free, there'd be less government intrusion. You
can't be a monopoly if you give the OS away. And, you don't have to reveal
as much about anything that is free to government agencies.

I may be wrong here, but I don't think they can (under current law) make you
publish APIs or other proprietary info when the "product" is free.

So, give away the OS (or make it ****ed cheap - like printers are now), and
make your money on the apps and services provided to government agencies and
businesses that run the free (or cheap as hell) OS.

If Windows was free, Linux and Macs would fizzle out overnight (not that
they're really cooking now).

jim

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 02:52:21 -0400, jim wrote:
[color=blue]
> "Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@users.easynews.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.10.24.05.52.56@users.easynews.com...[color=green]
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400, jim wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> 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.[/color]
>>
>> Ah, but that's not true. Arguably Microsoft DOES benefit.
>>
>> Whoever wrote this article doesn't seem to understand the big picture.
>> Chinese users are accustomed to getting their Windows OS for free.
>> Microsoft is afraid that if they can't get Vista for free, they'll
>> migrate towards Linux. It wouldn't do to have Linux computers become
>> dominant in the world's soon-to-be-biggest economy, would it? So,
>> Microsoft provides a "workaround" that committed software pirates can
>> exploit, while at the same time putting honest users in a vise to
>> squeeze out the last possible drop of licensing revenue.
>>
>> It's called "screwing your best customers." It only works for so long,
>> which is why Microsoft's star is on the wane.[/color]
>
> I still can't understand why Microsoft hasn't learned the lesson that
> razor and printer manufacturers have long ago...give away the OS and
> sell the apps to make it useful.[/color]

One way to turn a profit on free software is to sell a service contract
so people don't have to yank their hair out when something goes wrong.
That is how Linux companies operate. One company ([url]www.zonbu.com[/url]) sells a
complete system for consumers -- a cheap mini-ITX box preloaded with
Linux and an assortment of apps, with a service contract under which the
consumer pays the vendor to maintain the system via the Internet. It
seems like just the thing for anyone with basic computing needs who
doesn't want to bother with any kind of maintenance or troubleshooting.

Theoretically, Microsoft could do something like this, but the scale and
staffing requirements would be immense, and it would require a completely
different business model from the one they have now.
[color=blue]
>
> I may be wrong here, but I don't think they can (under current law) make
> you publish APIs or other proprietary info when the "product" is free.[/color]

Probably not, but one reason Windows has been so successful is because
Windows users have an immense range of software choices. As big as
Microsoft is, I don't think they could reasonably take on the job of
creating and distributing all the Windows software in every category.
[color=blue]
>
> So, give away the OS (or make it ****ed cheap - like printers are now),
> and make your money on the apps and services provided to government
> agencies and businesses that run the free (or cheap as hell) OS.
>
> If Windows was free, Linux and Macs would fizzle out overnight (not that
> they're really cooking now).[/color]

We will find out. The day is coming when the OS will be free, because
the difference in quality and application support between Windows and
Linux will be insignificant.

Charlie