Windows Vista - This copy is not genuine message
 

Hi all,
For some reason my wifes laptop is displaying 'this copy of windows is not genuine' down in the bottom right of the screen, it's running Vista and it definitely is a genuine version, I've checked a couple of forums and followed advice there but to no avail, I just wondered if anyone else has had this problem and if so, how they managed to fix it.
Thanks for any replies

Have you tried validating it again?

Have you made any hardware changes? If not it could be down to some recent update. Anyway, you might have to go through a manual activation. It's not a drama, I did it a few times in the past after upgrading bits.

Try this:

This copy of Windows is not genuine

All sorted, after a 50 minute conversation with an MS bod it has been fixed, the motherboard was replaced last month which seems to have caused an issue with mac addresses :confused:.

Thanks for your replies

Oh bugger - my lappy is in for a MB replacement - I'm crapping it worrying that stuff will have gone Pete Tong when it gets back.

Yes. Motherboards are considered major changes. Because if you replace the motherboard with a better one than the original manufacturer's part, you are effectivley creating a new computer and therefore, if your Windows license is an OEM license, would be in violation of the OEM license terms.

Simple really.

Edit to add :
Load Toad - If your motherboard is being replaced with the same manufacturer's part due to the previous one going faulty, then there shouldn't be an issue.

It's worse than waiting for my first born this is ;-(

Load Toad, worry not, apart from this validation issue everything else was fine when they replaced the MB, all the shortcuts, files etc were there so you shouldn't (:sad:) lose anything.

Good Luck

Don't sweat it. As long as you have the product key and can explain yourself over the phone without shouting, you should be fine.

Or load Linux and never again be plagued by M$'s 'you must jump through our hoops to prove to our satisfaction - again - that you really own the operating system you bought' or their Genuine Advantage (to them, not you) irritations.

My lappy is repaired, it is working and for a while peace and happiness reigns.

Where we live, it's not hard to find someone to get that message removed - for a small fee. You're probably the one person in HK running genuine software!

Not always that simple. I build my own PCs these days, and I don't recall ever seeing the same assortment of motherboards at the computer store when it's time to replace a bad motherboard. You're essentially forced to use a better motherboard even if you just want equivalency. And often that forces you to replace a lot of other stuff as well.

AntonyGA,

Which is why people who build their own computers are not permitted to use OEM licenses.

Microsoft are quite clear on that, see Licensing for Hobbyists

They are also similarly clear that if a motherboard is upgraded or replaced, for reasons other than a defect, then a new computer is created and OEM license is void.

Think about it, it makes sense. The metal chassis is just that, it has no functional use .... the motherboard is what makes the computer what it is.

true enough
 

but happy new year...hic

Actually, no, it doesn't make sense at all—the only purpose of the policy is to make more money. Today, if you build your own PC, more than half the cost of the PC may be the cost of the operating system.

If you change the engine of a car, you aren't obligated to replace all the tires or the chassis.

In any case, although Microsoft will not say so publicly, it is much happier to sell an OEM license than it is to have people using cracked versions of the OS. As a matter of fact, offhand, I'm not sure I know anyone personally who is using a legal version of Windows on his computer, aside from a handful of non-expert users who are using whatever was installed on the machines they bought. But even machines with preinstalled, legitimate versions of Windows tend to get wiped after a few years, when something goes wrong; and then many computer shops or friendly geeks will install cracked versions. Usually this is because the user has no media from which to reinstall the original OS, or has restore media on the disk drives but they are broken or infected by malware and cannot be used to rebuild the OS.

As an example of how widespread illegal versions of software are, when I left a company I was working for some years ago, there was practically a fight among other employees to get my office PC, because it was probably the only PC in the building that had a full suite of legal software installed … nothing pirated, original disks and documentation (I have a thing about being legal). And that was in a corporate environment.

Has anyone ever been prosecuted, in the UK, for running an un-licensed Microsoft OS? Because until it is then it is not necessarily enforceable in all cases owing to our law about unreasonable contracts.

gg,

I think you would have a hard time trying to prove that Microsoft license agreements were unreasonable. :ugh:

I personally know of people who have been on the receiving end of a Microsoft audit. No doubt there have been prosecutions somewhere, but I suspect the majority of people agree to become compliant following an audit. Resolving things out-of-court tends to be cheaper for both parties.

If you don't like it, go to Linux or Apple OS X. That's the simple answer.

Your counter-argument analogy about cars makes no sense.

As for "I'm not sure I know anyone personally who is using a legal version of Windows" etc. etc. ......that's just your view of the world. My view is that I've seen an increase in crack-down activity by Microsoft and others in the software industry over the last few years. Obviously businesses are more likely to be audited than individuals, but that's no reason for individuals to boast and be proud of the fact that they are running unlicensed software.

Yo don't have to prove anything, you state why you consider the contract to be unreasonable, they say why they think it reasonable and it's up to the judge to decide on it's reasonability