Device Driver Updates Causing Vista To Deactivate

[Guest Reimar]

Read an article about de-activation of windows because of driver updates!

It seems to be that not the upgrades from MS causing problems but the upgardes from drivers as well.

Read the article:

""Device driver updates causing Vista to deactivate

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.

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.""

Read the full article: Source

[Veazer]

...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.

This is insane behavior by MS. Why would they give users only 3 days to re-activate when the OS was previously determined to be legitimate and activated? This will only make people more frustrated with Vista.

I remember a similar issue with Adobe CS2 Suite. If it was installed to a raid array it would need to be re-activated every time the application was started. Of course, after a few activations too many they wouldn't allow any more and the user was locked out completely. The patch to fix the problem was never released on their site, users had to email Adobe and specially request the patch.

[cdnvic]

Ok, how often is this actually happening? So far we have one guy claiming it happened with no other similar incidents he can point to.

[Veazer]

Ok, how often is this actually happening? So far we have one guy claiming it happened with no other similar incidents he can point to.

Seems to be a few others with similar issues.

I doubt it's affecting a significant portion of users, i just think the response is a bit ridiculous. I've had extended periods without internet in thailand on many occasions. If I had to tote a machine into town just to appease MS I'd be rather irritated.

[RKASA]

I would say that if it happened to me, that it was a vary significant portion, big time.     MS needs to re think some of this.  How do you protect the OS without driving people nuts?  A $30+billion question so far.  It would seem most people will keep using it so I guess they can do it anyway they want.     

[nikster]

Ok, how often is this actually happening? So far we have one guy claiming it happened with no other similar incidents he can point to.

Seems to be a few others with similar issues.

I doubt it's affecting a significant portion of users, i just think the response is a bit ridiculous. I've had extended periods without internet in thailand on many occasions. If I had to tote a machine into town just to appease MS I'd be rather irritated.

It's perfectly in line with a monopoly intended mostly on preserving its profits - they don't have to compete so they put their efforts in anti-piracy, and they don't mind pulling the screws too tight sometimes.

I don't think it's going to be a big problem though - if the problem becomes wide-spread, the tech support costs will add up and Microsoft will fix it _rather quickly_ as the bug has a direct cash effect.

It's a bit weird that the system is too dumb to distinguish between a new driver and actual new hardware.. I mean... everyone makes mistakes but that one should be pretty obvious.

Edited October 26, 2007 by nikster

[ballbreaker]

I thought MS wanted to tie the OS license to the computer in the event you sold said PC you would have to buy a new copy for new PC. They feel the OS license belongs to the hardware once installed not the person. Thats why you must reactivate with live person at MS if you change major components.

[RKASA]

Wow they put DRM and stuff in everything its like a virus

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html  

I can't see how its not going to be a problem.

This is a big write up, seems he knows a thing or two about it and the drivers problems.

[cdnvic]

Wow they put DRM and stuff in everything its like a virus

A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

<a href="http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html" target="_blank">http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html</a>

I can't see how its not going to be a problem.

This is a big write up, seems he knows a thing or two about it and the drivers problems.

Nice try, but that's old news that's been pretty much proved to be scaremongering.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=299

http://computerworld.co.nz/news.nsf/news/5...Light=2,gutmann

Edited October 26, 2007 by cdnvic

[RKASA]

Well I was not tring anything, it was like Wow! because I had not seen any of this before.  ZDnet's Ed Bott does a great job explaining the issues.  I was thinking if this was true then it would really turn into a mess.  So this NZ guy is like a sky is falling type writer.  Gutmann, will be on the don't read list.

[cdnvic]

There are some/many real issues to take Microsoft to task on. Unfortunately they tend to get buried under rumour, scaremongering, and FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) like this.

[cdnvic]

Well I was not tring anything, it was like Wow! because I had not seen any of this before. ZDnet's Ed Bott does a great job explaining the issues. I was thinking if this was true then it would really turn into a mess. So this NZ guy is like a sky is falling type writer. Gutmann, will be on the don't read list.

Paul Thurrott interviews Ed Bott on his podcast this week:

http://www.twit.tv/ww39

[Guest Reimar]

The "Games" at MS carrying on. Now not Vista and XP users are suffering from the Updates, the Live OneCare seems to be involved as well!

No one can tell that all of this reports are "Bu**shit" or whatever and just something to "srew" down the Redmond Giant! No, there to much of this reports already! A question came up: What else MS has done (programmed) to controll the computer of the MS-User? May much more as anyone knows until right now!

Read the 2 lastest article about the Updates and their effects:

More gnashing of teeth after Microsoft update brings PCs to a standstill

Updated This story was updated on Thursday 25th October 2007 23:21 to add comment from Microsoft.

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong in an untold number of IT departments on Wednesday after Microsoft installed a resource-hogging search application on machines company-wide, even though administrators had configured systems not to use the program.

"The admins at my place were in a flap this morning because Windows Desktop Search 3.01 had suddenly started installing itself on desktops throughout the company," a Reg reader by the name of Rob informs us. "The trouble is that once installed, the indexer kicks in and slows the machines down."

The blogosphere is buzzing with similar reports, as evidenced by postings here, here and here.

"I'm slighly pissed of [sic] at M$ right now," an admin in charge of 3,000 PCs wrote in a comment to the first aforementioned link. "All the clients have slowed to a crawl, and the file servers are having problems with the load."

According to Reg tipster Rob, Windows Server Update Services (WSUS) forced Windows Desktop Services (WDS) 3.01 on the fleet of machines even though admins had configured their system to install updates only for existing programs and the search program wasn't installed on any machines (well, until then, anyway).

Bobbie Harder, a product manager for WSUS, denied the WDS update was unauthorized, saying it was applied only if administrators had approved a previous desktop search install in February.

"The initial update would have only been installed if the update had been either auto, or manually approved, and if the applicability criteria was met on the client (that WDS was installed)," he wrote in a blog post here. "With the expanded applicability rules, and the WSUS default setting to auto-approve new revisions, it may have appeared as if this update was deployed without approval. The initial version of the update would have had to have been approved, and the 'auto-approve revisions' option on (by default) in order for this revision to have also been approved and deployed."

Lest readers think Harder was saying the snafu was the fault of admins, he went on to say engineers would work to make auto-approval behaviors "more predictable and of similar scope as the original approved updates, as we appreciate the confusion this behavior caused."

It's been a rough several weeks for managers running Microsoft's auto update services. Last month, bloggers disclosed the existence of a Windows patch that silently and automatically installed itself even on Machines configured not to install updates. Critics cried foul on the principle that users should have absolute control over their machines. They also argued that the stealth update could hamper compliance requirements.

Microsoft said the patch was installed on machines only to make sure Windows Update worked properly in the future. Managers promised to be more transparent in the future.

The revelation that Microsoft is pushing yet more installations not explicitly agreed to by administrators is not likely to sit well with this same vocal contingent. Redmond may want to don the asbestos suits now.

Source

**********************************************************************

Microsoft addresses new reports of forced Windows updates and reboots

Microsoft has posted a long and complex explanation to its Windows Software Update Services (WSUS) blog, explaining the latest case of why software updates are being pushed to users who believe they've turned automatic updating off.Microsoft addresses new reports of forced Windows updates and reboots

The UK Register reported on October 25 that a number of admins were seeing Microsoft Desktop Search 3.01 pushed out to users via Microsoft's WSUS enterprise patching/update system, in spite of having opted out of this "resource-hogging search app."

Bobbie Harder, Microsoft Product Manager for WSUS, explained why some companies were seeing the updated Windows Desktop Search bits (aka, the updated package for KB917013) pushed to their users. It turns out Microsoft changed the deployment rules after the original release of Windows Desktop Search. Harder noted:

"The original update release, released February 2007 as an optional update, was only applicable on systems which had a version of Windows Desktop Search installed. The recent update Revision 105, had the applicability logic expanded to be applicable to all systems regardless if a prior version of Windows Desktop Search was installed, IF of course, approved in the WSUS Administrative UI or via Administrator-set auto-approval rules."

Harder summarized:

* "The initial February 2007 (WIndows Desktop Search 3.01) release had to be purposely checked/approved by WSUS admin s sfor distribution, because it was an Optional update.

* "All subsequent metadata-only revisions to that WSUS admin approved February 2007 release would then also be automatically approved for distribution.

* "The initial February approval is retained throughout the life of the update, regardless of revision."

Microsoft realizes this policy is creating confusion, Harder said, and will subsequently be "tightening the criteria for Revisions so that auto-approval of revision behaivors are more predictable and of similar scope as the original approved update."

Meanwhile, there's a new theory circulating as to why a number of Windows XP and Vista users are reporting that their machines are patching and forcibly rebooting themselves. It might be Windows Live OneCare's fault.

Microsoft officials said earlier this week that there were no problems with Microsoft's Automatic Update (AU) patching mechanism, nor with patches delivered on October 9 as part of Patch Tuesday that might be causing the automatic rebooting. Instead, company officials said they believed users an/or their admins — whether they realized it or not — were changing their preferences on Automatic Update to allow automatic updating and forced rebooting.

Microsoft officials said on October 25 they were looking into new reports of AU-related problems introduced via Windows Live Onecare and would provide more information once they determined whether or not OneCare might be the culprit behind reported rogue rebooting.

Vista marketing officials acknowledged this week that the company realizes it need to do a better job of explaining and implementing Windows Update/Automatic Update policies in order to maintain users' trust.

Update (late in the evening, EST, on October 25): Microsoft has provided some additional information pertaining to ongoing reports of rogue reboots.

On the consumer side of the house, the OneCare team is acknowledging that OneCare can and will override users' Microsoft Update settings — opting for Automatic Updates to be installed by default — in the name of simplicity. But the team is reevaluating the best way to make users more aware of this fact, going forward. From a posting on the OneCare Team blog:

"In the first OneCare boot experience we have gone to great lengths to disclose that OneCare may automatically effect changes to user settings in order to help best protect the user. When you first install Windows Live OneCare, setup informs you that if you choose to proceed your computer settings will be changed to automatically download and install important updates from Microsoft Update (a Microsoft service that provides software updates for Windows components and other Microsoft programs). You may still choose whether or not to install recommended and optional updates. "

On the enterprise/WSUS side, there's new information that has been added to the WSUS Team blog, as of this evening. Company officials explained a mistake the WSUS team made when rolling out an update to Windows Desktop Search this past Tuesday, and is providing information to help users uninstall any copies of WDS that were pushed erroneously to them without their approval.

Source

Edited October 27, 2007 by Reimar