Activation problem

Topic

New Reply

I installed WXP as a clean OS alongside W2000. Activated and worked fine. Although the EULA is clear on the “one computer” rule, this is a beta so I then installed on a second computer as an upgrade to W2000, as a second test. Activation, as expected, said there were changes and that I would need to call MS to obtain a new product number. MS confirmed that it is allowing testing of RC1 on more than one computer. I was given a new numerical code, computed on the characteristics of my new hardware and product key. The OS accepted this and fired up again. THe MS person said all was fine and we signed off. Used system all day, then shut down. On restart, after reaching the “apply personal settings” dialogue box, I was told that activation had expired and to install a valid copy. It did not give me the option of calling MS.

Do you know what the MS activation phone number is? I need to call them and discuss this. If the final product does this on an upgrade, thena lot of reinstallations will be required. All prior programs and settings will go unrecognized unless the user can start the XP install from within a valid OS. Am I right about this?

Reply | Quote

Replies

You have just discovered why I will never install a product that includes the abomination called the Registration/Activation Wizard. Why on earth would you trust access to your system or data to that code? Reinstallation is required – of a version that does not include copy protection.

Reply | Quote

I think this type of protection against piracy is going to grow, not go away. All i want is for it to work in the typical situations I face. A year from now, I could have a new HD, an upgraded video card with more memory, and a new wireless NIC. That might be all it takes to render my OS “illegal.” Fine with me, IF the reactivation process works. In this case, it failed and I am with your point of view about trusting it in future. Not sure, though, how you or I can demand being trusted ourselves when so much illegal copying is going on.

Reply | Quote

You will such mechanisms more a more in the future.
I;m even going to put such mechanisms in my own software.

However, I do not know why MSFT had to go any further than using the CPU serial number and registered licensee/organization name.

If they feel it is necessary to include other things such as NIC ID or volume serial number or factory hard drive serial number, they are just making life needlessly difficult.

Reply | Quote

You trust Microsoft to write code without bugs?

Reply | Quote

You need to change to “You trust All software houses to write code without bugs?

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

No, but the others are not writing code that could shut down my entire system on purpose!

Reply | Quote

I’ve been thinking of using the Crypto API, but if it has bugs then I’m at MSFT’s mercy, so I may do my own encryption code.

I can program around most types of bugs, but if the Crypto API fails, perhaps an unlikely event, I’m at MSFT’s mercy.

Reply | Quote

No, but the others are not writing code (at this time) that could shut down my entire system on purpose! But the other houses are looking at this very strong. If it works for the Office and the OS why NOT ALL.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

Well, apparently even Microsoft is now admitting it doesn’t work for Office or Windows. See story Here. They just haven’t figured out yet that the only fix is to kill it.

Reply | Quote

no, they are just fine tuning how it works. this apparently applies only the winxp, not office BTW.

i noticed at least one pro-activation beta tester requested just such a feature a few weeks ago. it’s totally logical to do this and i don’t see that they are admiting anything, the product is still in beta and they can and will change things until it RTMs, based on comments from beta testers.

Reply | Quote

It doesn’t work and fine tuning it is not going to fix it!

Reply | Quote

you say it doesn’t work, but have you tried it? i have and yes, it works as intended. i changed a good bit of hardware (as have other testers) without causing reactivation.

I replaced my desktop hard drive, video card, cdrw and doubled the memory – no problmes. On my laptop, it’s harder to test since i don’t dock it but i have swapped the pcima cards without problems.

Reply | Quote

No, and I never driven a Ford Explorer on Firestone tires either.

Reply | Quote

How could it work if you changed the hard drive?
THere is stuff encoded on the hard drive.

Or do you have more than 1 hard drive?

Reply | Quote

i imaged the old and restored it to the new. i was well within tolerance so no reactivation needed.

Reply | Quote

This has been very interesting reading, what with the MS bashers vs. supporters, but not all that helpful. Beta testing seems to be triggering more heat than light on this issue. I’m just an end user who encountered a vvery specific situation. Not a theoretical or political one. I hope everyone recognizes that Product Activation is acceptable to me if it works, and unacceptable if it doesn’t.
Don’t be discussing erroneous new “product keys” when that is not how it works. MS does not issue a new 25 digit alphanumeric “product key” when this situation arises. THe tech. support person uses the same product key as originally licensed and generates a special 42 digit all numeric code to reprogram something in the OS that resets it to see the current installation in combination with new hardware as being “legal” again. She generated it, read it to me, I typed it in, and the machine completed it boot, before failing with no further recovery options a few hours later (and no further hardware changes ).
If this has not happened to any of you, then you have never seen the warning and dialogue boxes that appeared on my screen. I am now assuming that’s why no one can give me the special tel. number that appears because they’ve never seen it, or like, me, were so interested in the resolution that we did not write it down for future reference.

Accepting a wider range of hardware changes is a good move – my hardware changes occur faster than my OS changes. But I also strongly suggest that MS allow any problem that arises after the above reset to at least produce a warning of impending failure, coupled with a means of taking it up with MS before kicking a user out and requiring a total new install including all applications, “favorites” etc. Sheesh!

Reply | Quote

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am NOT anti Microsoft. I am very anti copy protection having managed to have survived its previous incarnation from Lotus and Ashton Tate. One of the reasons that I am so adamantly opposed to Microsoft putting copy protection (called the Registragion/Activation Wizard to try to disguise what it really is) is because I don’t want to see it do to Microsoft what it did to Lotus, Ashton Tate, and all of the other companies that insisted on using it over their customer’s objection. I like Microsoft, and in fact think that their products (sans the registration/activation wizard) are some of the best on the market.

Reply | Quote

Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you.

Reply | Quote

I have not yet seen any evidence that MSFT allows the user to choose which of the “magic 10” hardware componets are to be used.

I expect that MSFT will adjust its algorithm to determine when they are willing to issue a re-Activation key.

Actually, I’m glad that MSFT has caused this issue to be discussed because I’ve been planning on including mechanisms in my own software to reduce the chance of piracy.

My fear, I always plan for the worst, is that even with a legit install, I may suddenly be de-Activated and I would then have to argue with some low level “techie” to get re-activated. I can program around other kinds of bugs, but a bug in the Activation mechanism means I’m dead in the water.

I also believe that, at some point, MSFT will get sued because some legit installation was refused re-Activation. Indeed, a clever enemy of MSFT might just intentionally set up the circumstances for such an action.

If I were Uncle Bill, I’d have Microsoft settle, at this time, just for requiring Activation at first install on any system.

MSFT realizes that the protection scheme will likely be hacked at some point, all they are doing is causing needless grief. Requiring Activation at first install is a significant step. Or people delaying purchases until the hack is available.

Also, you have to separate Win XP from Office XP.

Win XP
———-
1. For new systems, MSFT is assured of revenue.
2. For old systems, most people are honest and will install the software only on 1 system.
3. What about the pirated versions, especially if a hack becomes available? MSFT even gains from that! How?

Well it’s like giving away the razor to sell the blades. MSFT makes much more on sales of Office. The more filkes that have XP:

a. Support costs go down because MSFT, and users, have less platforms to deal with.
b. XP requires newer systems, implying that users will need to buy newer Office, etc. apps.

Indeed, MSFT might even sell MORE apps with pirated Win XP, than otherwise. Nobody can say fer sure.

3. I’d hope that MSFT would ease the Activation rules for multi-boot systems, for both Win XP and Office XP.
For example, I could have two versions of Win XP installed. On one, I’d have, say, Office 2000, on the other, Office XP. This is needed for testing macros. It is too expensive for the self-employed to get multiple licenses. MSFT recognizes this for certain development products, e.g., VB and the Office Development Tools.

Office XP
———–

1. Here’s where Activation does matter because MSFT loses sigificant revenue with pirated copies.

2. I’d hope that MSFT would ease the Activation rules for multi-boot systems, for both Win XP and Office XP.
For example, I could have two versions of Win XP installed. On one, I’d have, say, Office 2000, on the other, Office XP. This is needed for testing macros. It is too expensive for the self-employed to get multiple licenses. MSFT recognizes this for certain development products, e.g., VB and the Office Development Tools. Yes, I repeated myself, but I think that this is very important.

Sorry for rambling.

Reply | Quote

For what it is worth, the tech. support person was very accommodating in helping me fix my problem with RC1. I was honest with her about having made a clean install on one computer, and then having tried an upgrade to w2000 on another. She said MSFT was not sticking to EULA during beta testing, as it would with retail sales. I have since brought that second system back to life by playing around with the wpa.dbl file. It allowed me to reactivate and gave me the MSFT tel. no. so I can take this up with them to explain what has happened. Once back into the running OS, I did an immediate ASR and am now doing a tape backup to test THAT setup when the situation arises. Don’t know how long any of this will work. Perhaps only to the next full re-boot. I have found (thanks to an indavertent screen saver) that logging off and back on as a second user (the system sees two profiles) different from the one who reactivated the OS with MSFT results in a “activation expired” dialogue. This time however, it did not kill the OS, but let me log back on as the other peron. Strange.

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

But I also strongly suggest that MS allow any problem that arises after the above reset to at least produce a warning of impending failure, coupled with a means of taking it up with MS before kicking a user out and requiring a total new install including all applications, “favorites” etc. Sheesh!

---

[/indent] FWIW – this has been the hot topic the past few days. I only hope MS listens to those beta testers who are asking for it.

I know they have already incorporated one suggestion into activation – resetting the activation after a period of no reactivations so a reinstall looks like a first use of the key.

Reply | Quote

Ayup, that would be a positive reaction.

I sure hope they do something about multiboot systems.

Reply | Quote

Just discovered that my problem with a re-activated system is quite different than previously discussed. The OS is legal, but “expired”. It seems, according to MSFT tech. supp., that some RC1 copies are miscoded and do not last the 180 days people paid for (in my case, it’s useful life was no more than 14 days!). I was directed to wpphelp@microsoft.com where I left a message. I’m supposedly going to receive a workaround.

Reply | Quote

Sounds like a good reason to not trust any Microsoft system that includes the Registration/Activation Wizard time bomb.

Reply | Quote

hardly – it was the demo timer that was bad, not the activation.

you really need to stop calling it a “registration/activation wizard”. Registration isn’t involved at all, only activation. In RC1 the registration screen is presented at the same time but that will be changed for RTM and both will clearly be separate items.

Reply | Quote

So Microsoft never releases code with bugs except in Beta?

Well, Microsoft called it the Registration Wizard until their marketing department started throwing the Bill Clinton Spin Meisters on it. I’m just continuing their original name. If they aren’t registering it, then how can they know when you try to register too many times?

Reply | Quote

you’re activating the copy – registration (identifying yourself by name and other personal information) is optional. early betas used one set of screens so it could be done in one step, but RTM will have registration separate from activation.

Reply | Quote

If I have to identify the copy I am activating, then it is being registered. The software serial number combined with the hardware information can be used to identify me (although I do not really object to that).

Reply | Quote

the hardware hash is such that it can’t be reverse engineered and identify you. You need to activate the software to use it, you do not need to otherwise identify yourself in a manner that implies registration.

you’ve never even used XP and made it clear many posts ago that you aren’t going to ever use a program that uses activation, so why keep arguing?

Reply | Quote

That’s what I have been told, but have no way to verify. Howewver, a new hardware hash on my machine could be matched to the one MS registers, and that would identify me.

Like I also said in previous posts, I don’t need to drive a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires on it to know that I will not buy one. I keep arguing in the hopes that enough others will understand and complain to MS that MS will remove this before they go the way of Lotus and Ashton Tate. If you have made up your mind that you like this, then why do you keep arguing?

Reply | Quote

[indent]

---

If you have made up your mind that you like this, then why do you keep arguing?

---

[/indent] Because i don’t like to see misinformation spread – it only serves to confuse people who are interested in using WinXP and want the facts about activation before they make up their minds. There is an unbelievable amount of wrong information being spread about activation.

Your hardware hash cannot be used to identify you or even specifoc hardware about your computer. It’s generic when created and when changes are made, they are compared to the hash on your computer to see if they are still close. If not, you need to reactivate.

As for it being Lotus and Ashton Tate – well, if that’s what MS wants, that’s what they might get. Time will tell, but if they go under because of it, it’s no big loss to me – some other company will come along to take their place. Considering how well it went over with Office, i don’t expect a big problem for MS, once people see how easy it is and decide the media reports were written by paranoids. They are still tweaking the windows version and can continue to tweak it after RTM.

Reply | Quote

If you will point out any misinformation that I am spreading, I will be happy to retract it.

Are you trying to tell me that if I reinstall on exactly the same hardware that I will get a different hash? If so, how can Microsoft tell when I am breaking the license and when I am not? If not, then my machine can be identified.

Reply | Quote

if the hardware doesn’t change, the hash remains the same. but the way the hash is calculated, it can’t be used to identify you or your hardware. You really need to read the information about activation – http://www.licenturion.com/xp/

Reply | Quote

If the hash remains the same, the recalculating the hash on my system and comparing it to the registered hash identifies my system.

Reply | Quote

THat’s interesting.

Was it a disk image, or a file system image?
I expect the latter would require a re-Axtivation.

Reply | Quote

i used drive image to create it. it didn’t require a reactivation because not enough hardware changed. I’ve resized partitions too – no sweat.

i’m not alone – i’ve seen many reports where it’s difficult to trigger reactivation in the beta, except on enough new hardware to equal a new machine. Also, it still is in beta and as with all betas, there are bugs to work out. so far i don’t know if the testers are really testing it as they should or just spending all their time trying to argue against it. (much like here) i fear the latter and it means they could be missing bugs.

i’m not pro activation – i’m resigned to the fact it’s going to stay in some form and restinance is futile. i’m choosing to learn what triggers it.

re: the comment in another message about home users mostly honest and only install on one computer – don’t bet on it. They need activation to keep them honest. Most think they own the software and that they are free to install it on every computer they own. I was shocked with the number of beta testers who admitted they did just that – in both the office and windows betas.

Reply | Quote

I don’t think the OS is as big a concern as Office for most home users.

They won;t be able to use Win XP On older hardware anyway.

They’d likely purchase new hardware with Win XP, if that’s what they need.

Copying of Office XP is a bigger issue.

Reply | Quote

Most of this is media hype, and most reporters have not tried it and don’t NOT know what they are talking about. or do NOT state the complete story of their experience.
If you have not tried it, you have NO first hand knowledge about it.
I am a Windows XP beta tester and have it loaded on two machines. I have not had any problems with the Windows XP or the Office XP activation with either. And Office XP has been loaded and activated more that 10 times do the different builds.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

I’m sure Woody would appreciate your opinion of him.

To continue the analogy I just used with Mary, there are millions of people with Ford Explorers and Firestone tires that have not had any problems either.

Reply | Quote

I posted the following in a news group recently.
—————————-
Q292619 – OFFXPDEV Using the Code Commenter and Error Handler Add-in Can
Cause Compilation Errors.htm

First, the good news: Microsoft has admitted the problem and given a
“solution”.
Now, the bad news: Any competent testing, not to mention design, methodology
would have prevented such an error from being released.

The implication is that the QA/development teams need a heck of a lot more
training/guidance in producing quality products, or, MSFT is just not giving
their people enough time or resources to do the job. Even a crude test plan
should have led to the detection of such an error.

Again, I, congratulate MSFT for publishing the KB article, but it is a clear
demonstration of what appears to be an ongoing problem within MSFT that
needs rapid correction.

Reply | Quote

Given the variety of hardware combinations out there, and the new hardware available everyday, there are not enough resources available, even if they were all given to the people producing this code, to insure that there will not be bugs in the activation code.

I will go back to my story from back in my IBM mainframe days. IBM distributed a program with its OS Operating system named IEFBR14. This program was two bytes in size and consisted of a single instruction (Branch Register 14, the BR14 in the name). This instruction just returned to the operating system. The program was meant to provide a way to have a step in the Job Control Language (JCL) so that JCL statements could be used to allocate or delete files on disk, etc. Now, one would think that a program this simple could be written without bugs. However, someone submitted an SPR (bug report) on this program which IBM accepted because the program was returning to the operating system without setting a return code and this was causing problems for job scheduling software. IBM issued a fix for this program that added one instruction and increased its size to four bytes.

With Microsoft’s track record, I for one am not going to trust them to write extremely complex code that is designed to prevent me from using my system without bugs.

Reply | Quote

THe amount of hardware is irrelevant.

1. THis was a code design screw up any competent review process would have caught.

2. Any competent test plan would have detected this problem.

I expect that MSFT is just giving their people enough time to do the job right.

Reply | Quote

Therefore we can conclude that Microsoft does not have a competent review plan or a competent test plan? Another good reason not to install any software that includes their Registration/Activation Wizard.

Reply | Quote

the program is still in beta and changes in the activation process are changable – and because they are server based, it can easily be changed on the server at any time.

Reply | Quote

The only change that will fix this is to remove it.

Reply | Quote

there are only two ways it’s going to be removed – 1) if they find a better way to enforce the EULA or 2) if sales are bad and it’s traced to PA.

They’ll refine the process for #1, i doubt #2 will happen since only those who buy retail and small system builders will be affected. Large builders like Dell and Gateway will use bios lock to bypass activation/deactivation completely.

retail sales are not a big peice of the OS sales pie and there is always someone who just has to have the latest and greatest programs released. sales may be bad in oct, but it might be the ecomony, not PA. As more people try winxp with activation and see how it works, rather than how the media says it is, the mood will soften and they’ll want xp for what it offers with or without PA.

BTW – have you used winxp or office and seen how activation works?

Reply | Quote

Well, they have already found that sales are bad and have traced it to the Registration/Activation Wizard. There was a news article yesterday saying that Microsoft has received so many complaints that they are modifying the code to allow more changes in a modified time frame. Eventually, they will figure ot that modifying it won’t fix it. The only question is if they figure this out before or after they become the next Lotus or Ashton Tate. See story Here.

Reply | Quote

winxp is not released yet – it’s sales are not affected but pa yet – if office xp is worth buying and the consumer can afford it, they would buy it, activation or not.

i haven’t seen anything suggesting activation, not the ecomony or lack of compelling features are to blame for office xp’s assumed poor sales. i also haven’t seen anything remarking on office xp’s sales – it’s a WAG that they are poor. now if you have a url pointing a the report you saw, i’d love to see it – i’m really curious how they can determine that it was definitely activation and not the poor ecomony to blame.

Reply | Quote

The following is from http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroo…tivationfaq.asp

Which customers will be required to activate?

All customers who purchase retail packaged products or a new PC from an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) will be required to activate the software. The software on a new PC from an OEM may be activated in the factory. Product activation will not be required for licenses acquired by a customer through one of Microsoft

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

So they know that their big customers will not stand for this monstrosity! Why should we?

Reply | Quote

you’ve already said you aren’t going to use any program that requires activation – others will because they want the latest and greatest.

i think once they try it it’s going to be “oh, that’s all there is to it?” the vast majority of users won’t be affected by it at all.

Reply | Quote

Alas, these daze, you’d find the inadequcy of design/test plans, or their implementation, with most software.

I’ve seen software ship, even tho it was known to not be ready, because it was needed to support hardware and they wanted sales that fiscal quarter.

They just ship the crap, and keep their fingers crossed, hoping to release fixes later before a signifucant number of users get burnt.

Reply | Quote

Windows XP RC1 is to be installed on ONLY one machine. Just because it is beta does not mean that you can install it on as many machines as you like. If you read the listing it says ONE MACHINE. You have just proved to the world that Activation does and will work.
I think a TRUE beta tester can use the RC1 on a couple machines, but if you bought the Public release of RC1 then it is to be used on only one machine.
Hope this helps.

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

You make a great point but miss what mine is. I’m not trying to get around the EULA. Microsoft told me it was ok to test it on more than one machine and gave me the authrorization code to do so. The testing showed the dangers of relying on their present process if you were to go through the legal process following significant hardware changes (like buying a new computer!). Despite inserting the new number provided by MS during the tech. support call, and having the machine accept it and run all day without problems, it failed to reboot into the revalidated XP! No warnings either about the copy appearing to be illegal and requiring another call to Microsoft. Just a statement that validation had expired, and a reinstall of a valid version was now required. No choice but to hit the “OK” button and be greeted by the usual BSOD with a STOP error.

I think this tells me, MS and others that the Activiation works fine to spot potential piracy (not an issue with me at all), but that it does not work in making the system legal thereafter if no piracy was involved. Unless changed, this reverification process/code could trash someone’s registry settings and weeks of fine tuning if placed on a new system and doing what is required to be legal. I may not be a fullblown tester on this, as I was back in the Windows 3.1 era, but a potential flaw like this needs to be taken seriously. And not providing the phone number in this situation does not help either. I’ve communicated everything I’ve told you to Microsoft by e-mail since I cannot call them.

Reply | Quote

I see your point, but you should have had the NEW code to enter when you installed the OS. If you do a clean install does the new code work? Also remember which code number is for which machine, if needed to reinstall the SAME code will be required for that machine.

There is a FAQ that address’s the use of Multi orders of RC1 at the MS WindowsXP web page .

As for “like buying a new computer” it will come with the OS, but building a NEW computer you will need to buy a new copy. OS’s are not to be MOVED from one machine to another.

As for “not providing the phone number ” the install screens show the number that needs to be called to activate.

I do NOT really agree with this method, but as long as there are borrowed copies being made to by pass ones cost something needs to be done. I have been ask for to many times by others if they could borrow a copy, so the would not have to buy it.

Another thing is why don’t we make copies of the plates that are on our first car and put the copy on the second and third car?

DaveA I am so far behind, I think I am First
Genealogy....confusing the dead and annoying the living

Reply | Quote

Thanks for your insights on this. In hindsight, I should have ordered two betas to test on two machines. But, had I done so, I probably would not have discovered what I was trying to test – namely, a “false positive” in which the OS sees itself as illegal on a different or upgraded machine, and tells the user what to do about it, complete with phone number to MS. I did that. For my existing key code (after all, I am only entitled to one) I was given a 42 digit all-numeric to enter into the reactivate dialogue box. The tech support person stayed with me until the OS completed its boot. I was now legal again, and we said goodbye. All was well until I rebooted for the first time. Then, no warning of impending doom or phone numbers to call. Doom itself had arrived and I had a dead OS.

Unless the internal programming is changed, I cannot trust XP, even with MS support, to get from a suspected illegal situation to a revalidated OS. Hence, lost data. This was a reality 101 test for me. I’m glad i tried it. I like W XP in all ways, but this is a fatal flaw.

As for the auto metaphor, here is mine: I own a car. The transmission needs replacement. I install the new transmission (e.g. hard drives, NIC, video card, etc.) and the car refuses to start. It tells me I need to relicense it before the engine will turn over. I do relicense it by calling the manufacturer and getting a new code for the onboard computer. It accepts the code, starts and runs once, long enough to get me way out in the boonies. I turn it off to have a roadside picnic. I get back in the car and try to start it. It tells me it will never start again and I need to buy a whole new car! No warnings, no road side assistance to call. Just abandoned by a dead vehicle.

Reply | Quote

ACtivation works differently in the Beta version.
MSFT has even documented how to diable Activation with a Registry hack, but that won;t be in the realeased code.

Reply | Quote