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

And by the time you employ a half-decent lawyer to do that, you might as well just buy the proper licenses !

I'm not so sure. Many EULAs, especially shrink-wrap EULAs, closely resemble contracts of adhesion. Software companies attempt to disavow any responsibility or obligation at all, while attempting to hold users to all sorts of restrictions, which does not make for a valid contract.

Unfortunately, it's not an answer at all. Computer operating system choices are driven by application choices, and the very vast majority of desktop applications run only on Windows. And in the case of Apple, a company that tightly controls both software and hardware (whereas Microsoft only controls the OS), it's out of the frying pan and into the fire as far as being tied to a specific vendor is concerned. Linux is just a hobby OS, so it won't work, either.

Ever since BillG left the company a dozen years ago, Microsoft has been riding on borrowed time, with a singular lack of innovation and many poor business decisions. Steve Ballmer is a businessman, not a technician or visionary, and he keeps making serious mistakes. Increased auditing of licenses is just one awkward and inadequate way of trying to prop up the revenue stream. Nevertheless, I don't recall ever hearing of criminal complaints against end users or end-user organizations, and I know that many large organizations are using pirated products, especially in certain regional markets (and Microsoft generally knows this). The fallout from antagonizing large accounts or bad PR from actions taken against individuals can completely eclipse any recovery from actions against people who aren't respecting their contracts (if any).

If SteveB weren't a major shareholder in Microsoft, he would have been in the unemployment line a long time ago. Many of the natives are restless, although shareholders don't care too much as long as the company stays profitable from quarter to quarter (long-term health is irrelevant).

And that's what Microsoft gambles on. The company knows that its licensing might not withstand close scrutiny, and that even if it won in the government's courtroom, it could lose in the courtroom of public opinion.

An outcome which of course most people would accept if it were still possible to get an ongoing renewed license for (say) XP which still suits many applications for older clunkers. A lot of these still exist, since XP was apparently the last 'reliable' versions of windows which still had enough 'dos' present to run some applications for which no W7 version has been or ever will be forthcoming.

Still, I doubt that that would ever happen. Enforced redundancy is built into the computer game wherever you look. The wastage is enormous, but that's what we accept - however reluctantly. (sigh)

Linux is looking better all the time.

regards,
FOR

Sounds like you've opted for solutions that rely entirely on Windows so are locked in. It might be the majority that you're locked into using but "vast" & "majority" it ain't overall.

I'm sure those running web servers, super computers & ATC consider it a hobby OS :yuk: Who in their right mind uses Windows for anything serious? :E

le Pingoin,

The London Stock Exchange share trading system, TradElect. That was running on Windows 2003, with .NET and C# programs written by Microsoft and Accenture.

At least until their recent high profile crash, when I believe wheels were put in motion to replace it. :cool:

Current day applications include ATMs ("cash machines"), the vast majority of those have Windows running in embedded format.

Various large companies use it for their ERP and SAP systems.

FOR,

That sort of thing is still available for Volume License business customers, your license allows downgrade to one or two versions back.

If you were in their shoes, would you not attempt to do the same ? A good lawyer will always draft a fair contract, whilst at the same time making a reasonable attempt to minimise potential future liabilities for his client.

If you think about the nature of software, given the target price point of your average Microsoft product for home users, I don't think Microsoft's LoL (Limitation of Liability) clauses should come as any surprise.

Finally, you should remember the jurisdiction under which the contract operates. From memory, many Microsoft licenses operate under US law, which may have a different point of view when it comes to EULAs and LoL.

I'm with le Pingoin here. You've dug your own grave by choosing Windows applications and insisting on keeping them.

Somehow I think it's not a gamble. And irrespective of licensing, I think most courts would recognise the need to differentiate between retail, OEM and volume licenses and hence the need for more restrictive agreements for some.

Being replaced by a Linux based system. Thank you & the now sacked LSE CEO for supporting my argument :E

After a crash with an OEM Vista laptop, and a reinstall from a Vista disc, the validation failed. Got through to MS who refused to validate it and suggested I called the manufacturer. This I did - the only option they gave me was to purchase another disc and key for 30 quid. Googled the probelem and, reluctantly, cracked the problem. No hardware had been changed on the machine, so this refusal to validate seems a bit odd to me.

I specifically mentioned desktops, saying nothing of servers.

Linux is fine for servers, although real UNIX or (in some cases) a mainframe would be even better.

I have more than a hundred applications installed on my computer, and only a handful of them exist in versions for any operating system other than Windows. If I used a Mac, almost all of these applications would not be available to me, and the situation would be even worse with Linux. Since I base my choice of operating system on the applications I wish to run, Windows is the logical—arguably the only viable—choice. Not only do these applications generally not exist in versions for any other platform, but there are no suitable substitutes for them on any other platform.

This problem is painfully obvious for people who must use desktop machines for productive work. It is often not at all obvious to people who are more interested in playing with an OS than with getting real work done. Two different user communities.

No. I have been in similar shoes, but I have not done the same. I have a conscience. Asking people to pay money for something and then disclaiming responsibility for everything except a tear in the cardboard box in which I provide the product is not ethically tolerable to me, and enforcing such a lopsided contract could be problematic.

It amazes me that anyone would be stupid enough to try to implement systems of this kind with Windows, .NET, and other such junk. I can understand why Microsoft and Accenture would push it, because that's what they have available, and they don't really know anything else, but the client at least should have done the research necessary to avoid this mistake.

Mission-critical enterprise-level systems are best implemented on mainframes, but a whole generation of so-called IT experts has grown up without even realizing that mainframes exist, so naturally they are too naive to see their suitability to this sort of application.

So they still don't know what they are doing. Hopefully they'll be able to squeak by with Linux, if that be their desire, but again, a mainframe is the proper solution. It's expensive, but you get what you pay for.

AnthonyGA, you seem stuck in an old paradigm.
New York, NASDAQ, Tokyo, Singapore Exchanges & others use Linux. Or are you saying none of them have a clue either?

And are you trying to say that there aren't equivalents on other systems for the overpriced Winblows software you use?

Do you think you can keep your holy OS wars off here? I come here to relax, not to have half-baked ideologists try to tell me how to compute. I can do that sort of crap in my day job thanks.

Have to agree
 

Nothing is perfect but did want to suggest forget Vista and move on to Windows 7.

I can't be bothered to continue this debate.

Think we'll all have to agree to disagree and move on.

P.S. I agree with Mr Optimistic.... I can't believe anyone is trying to make Vista work for them.... should be using Windows 7 .... it's what Vista should have been !