Vista - WARNING: device driver updates causing Vista to deactivate

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
http://apcmag.com:80/vista_activation/).....
_________________________________________________
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

Alias wrote:Horsesh*t!
You don't know what you're talking about.
Frank
These programs don't do much for

Alias wrote:

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

"forty-nine" <49@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:OzjdvbdFIHA.4296@xxxxxxmonopoly
monopoly
just a monopoly

jim wrote:Too bad you couldn't afford a brain.
Idiot.
Frank

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:51:02 -0400, jim wrote:
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@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O4W8lneFIHA.5544@xxxxxxWell Frank, you claim to have one; but, it must have been from the bargain
rack because it doesn't work properly.

Not Me wrote:
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@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23uJIjagFIHA.4880@xxxxxx