Why does Vista Ultimate want me to activate AGAIN

Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.

When I installed...ok this one's a given
When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ

and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.

And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to call
them

Why? Because the Activation function is far from perfect.

Three out of four, Vista would need to be reactivated because it *might*
have been installed on another computer, but you're exactly right about the
RAM, it should not have triggerred reactivation. Microsoft said so!

Personally, I'd send a specific bug report and also regular feedback
complaining about the unnecessary reactivation. If more of us complain, then
just *maybe* they'll improve it sooner.

KB

"N Fiorello" wrote in message
news:7DECD80D-2355-45CA-B93C-...
> Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
>
> When I installed...ok this one's a given
> When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
> When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ
>
> and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.
>
> And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to
> call
> them
>
>

Are you running Vista64?


"N Fiorello" <> wrote in message
news:7DECD80D-2355-45CA-B93C-...
> Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
>
> When I installed...ok this one's a given
> When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
> When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ
>
> and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.
>
> And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to
> call
> them
>
>

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

Unfortunantely, with Windows Vista if there is a hardware change, usually as
a HD, RAM, Bios, etc... Windows will want you to active the product again.
So, conveniently you are going to need to call them.
--
If I have answered your question, please select this post as your answer.


"N Fiorello" wrote:

> Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
>
> When I installed...ok this one's a given
> When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
> When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ
>
> and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.
>
> And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to call
> them
>
>

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:25:00 -0700, Christopher wrote:

> Unfortunantely, with Windows Vista if there is a hardware change, usually as
> a HD, RAM, Bios, etc... Windows will want you to active the product again.
> So, conveniently you are going to need to call them.

What is convenient about calling Microsoft and begging to be oh so
graciously allowed to use the product one paid good money for?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

N Fiorello wrote:
> Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
>
> When I installed...ok this one's a given
> When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
> When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ
>
> and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.
>
> And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to call
> them
>
>
Or, since you know how to flash the ram, you could download a modified
one that has the modified info to allow you to activate it as oem. Then
you will never need to activate again.

On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 11:25:00 -0700, Christopher

>Unfortunantely, with Windows Vista if there is a hardware change, usually as
>a HD, RAM, Bios, etc... Windows will want you to active the product again.

What appears to have changed - and no-one's pinned this down as yet -
is the number of things that change before your OS vandor hatches the
DoS payload. Vista's supposed to use the same criteria as XP, yet I
frequently see cases where Vista is more trigger happy.

NB; there are there activation models...
- no activation (VLK)
- BIOS-locked activation, used by big OEMs
- component-monitored activation, used by the rest
....and I'm referring only to the last of these.

>"N Fiorello" wrote:

>> Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
>>
>> When I installed...ok this one's a given

As you say, OK :-)

>> When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given

Not so. Lives lost, would be:
- HD, if the 320G was removed
- volume serial number, only if partition wsn't transferred as-is
- IDE controller, only if original controller was removed

That's between 1 and 3 "lives" lost, out of 10. That should not be
enough to trigger the payload, by the rules that applied to XP.

>> When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ

RAM size is one "life" only, so (unless added to 3 lives lost, e.g. as
above) this should NOT trigger the payload. Small shifts in RAM
(e.g.changing the balance between system and onboard graphics) is not
supposed to lose this "life"; 3G to 4G would be expected to.

>> and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.

That's not supposed to be a hardware change, so shouldn't kick over
the component-monitored model. It may or may not kick over the
large-OEM BIOS-locked model, I dunno.

However, a new BIOS may enumerate devices differently, causing them to
appear to have changed, and thus shed comonent "lives". In XP, you
can watch this via Licenturion's XP-Info, but this doesn't work in
Vista. Naturally, as MS is hostile to your attempts to see what is
going on, they provide no tools for you to watch such things.

BTW, I've seen device firmware changes shed "lives", e.g. updating a
CD writer's firmware lost that life, and installing drivers for Intel
graphics (that did an SVGA BIOS flash on the sly) lost that life.

>> And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up,
>> I'll need to call them

Post back with your mileage.



>------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
The rights you save may be your own
>------------------ ----- ---- --- -- - - - -

No. Since this was an upgrade, I chose to stick with 32 bit. Eventually
I'll go with a clean 64bit install, but I want to allow more time for driver
support, and such.

What really ticks me off is that the last change was NOT hardware at all.

BIOS=Basic Input Output SOFTWARE

Also, I'd really have to check my notes, but there's a possibility that I
upgraded my raid before the initial activation period was over...

"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

> Are you running Vista64?
>
>
> "N Fiorello" <> wrote in message
> news:7DECD80D-2355-45CA-B93C-...
> > Ok, for the 4th time now, I've gotten the activation pop-up.
> >
> > When I installed...ok this one's a given
> > When I upgraded my raid from 320g to 500g...ok different HD, a given
> > When I upgraded my memory from 2g to 4g...not supposed to according to FAQ
> >
> > and now...When I flashed my bios to the latest version.
> >
> > And of course, now the 'convenient' activation is used up, I'll need to
> > call
> > them
> >
> >
>
> --
>
>
> Mike Hall
> MS MVP Windows Shell/User
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
>
>
>
>

Yea, I could do as you suggest. I did run slmgr -rearm to put the phone call
off until I actually have time for it... but again it's back to why should I,
the legal user have to jump through hoops that the pirate can avoid?

Although I must admit, the last time XP bombed out on me this way, I took
great pleasure in telling "John, with the foreign accent" that I got my copy
of XP from the microsoft company store, then launching into a 15 minute
tirade that MS must be selling illegal copies of it's own software, and they
should be put to the torch


"Nicole & Tom" wrote:

>
> Or, since you know how to flash the ram, you could download a modified
> one that has the modified info to allow you to activate it as oem. Then
> you will never need to activate again.
>

N Fiorello <> wrote:
>Yea, I could do as you suggest. I did run slmgr -rearm to put the phone call
>off until I actually have time for it... but again it's back to why should I,
>the legal user have to jump through hoops that the pirate can avoid?

It's so typical for Microsoft - throw up roadblocks to annoy
legitimate users, which have no effect on hackers...


--

Whenever I dwell for any length of time on my own shortcomings,
they gradually begin to seem mild, harmless, rather engaging little things,
not at all like the staring defects in other people's characters.

....Margaret Halsey