«

Bingo. That's the one I installed yesterday on Vista x64.

"Carlos" <> wrote in message
news:BBBC94B6-DEEB-4503-B0AC-...
> Thanks for the data, Dominic.
> I have found a downloadable version of the nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
> (the one in Windows Update) at:
> http://test.catalog.update.microsoft...rial%20nforce4
> Three controllers are available.
> 1st. and 3rd. are for Vista x64
> 2nd. is for Vista x86
> NVstor64.sys (and inf file) version is 5.10.2600.0824
> Date is 12/23/2006
> Carlos
>
> "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>
>> The version is is 8.24, not 8.64. The author is nVidia with a driver date
>> of
>> 23/12/2006 in Device Manager.
>>
>> The nvstor64.sys file in system32/drivers is 5.10.2600.0824 and shows a
>> Date
>> modified of 05/01/2007.
>> The nvstor64.sys file in the v15 set is 5.10.2600.0931with a Date
>> modified
>> of 22/12/2006.
>> Both files are attributed to nVidia.
>>
>>
>> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>> news:65121C40-52E9-43AE-A20D-...
>> > Dominic:
>> > So, assuming the 8.64's were developed by NVidia (remember the song "it
>> > is
>> > up to the hardware manufacturer to develop drivers...blah, blah,
>> > blah"?),
>> > it
>> > means that MS is offering drivers that are older than the ones posted
>> > by
>> > NVidia at their web site.
>> > I am not at a Vista machine right now but I can recall that in one of
>> > the
>> > tabs in Device Manager (right click on the SATA device, choose
>> > properties)
>> > it
>> > is now possible to determine which is the inf file that installed the
>> > driver.
>> > If such is the case and my memory is right, it would be then possible
>> > to
>> > open that file and see additional details, e.g.: manufacturer, date,
>> > version,
>> > etc.
>> > This way we could double check if the 8.64's belong to NVidia.
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>> >
>> >> The SATA IDE driver installed on my system by the Microsoft update is
>> >> 8.64.
>> >>
>> >> The official nVidia version in the v15 driver package is 9.31 WHQL.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B-...
>> >> > Colin:
>> >> > As a side note I have become reluctant to install hardware driver
>> >> > updates
>> >> > from Microsoft.
>> >> > This started when a couple of months ago MS posted a RAID driver for
>> >> > NForce4
>> >> > which made my system crash.
>> >> > Unless I have no driver, i.e. I have an exclamation sign in Device
>> >> > Manager,
>> >> > I only use hardware drivers from the chipset manufacturer (NVidia,
>> >> > ATI,
>> >> > etc.)
>> >> > Latest update for NForce4 chipset was on Feb 5.
>> >> > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce4...a64_15.00.html
>> >> > and so far, no news on NVidia.
>> >> > Can you post the SATA controller version you got from MS so that I
>> >> > can
>> >> > compare it with the one included in the above package?
>> >> > Carlos
>> >> >
>> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> As Felix reported a few days ago, there is an optional update on
>> >> >> Microsoft
>> >> >> Update that requires reactivation of Vista after the update is
>> >> >> installed.
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> did two updates today and discovered that my activation status had
>> >> >> changed
>> >> >> from Activated to "Three days remaining....".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The updates today were:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
>> >> >>
>> >> >> KB936824 (the iPod update)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since the system drive figures very importantly in the hardware
>> >> >> hash
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> used to calculate when reactivation is required, my bet would be
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> NVIDIA update would cause reactivation because it is a change
>> >> >> involving
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> hard drive controller. (note: my update history shows this update
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> installed successfully twice and that does not make a lot of sense
>> >> >> either.)
>> >> >> But my assumption means nothing and maybe it was the iPod update.
>> >> >> Hardware
>> >> >> is involved there too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In any case, be aware that an optional update is on the server that
>> >> >> will
>> >> >> require you to use phone activation to reactivate Vista following
>> >> >> installation of the update. Internet activation will not be
>> >> >> accepted.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

Colin:
I am now on my Vista PC.
In Device Manager/IDE ATA/ATAPI controller/NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA
Controller/Properites
choose the "Controller" tab from there and not from the "Details" tab.
I have version 5.10.2600.931 which corresponds to the NVidia supplied one.
I'll keep that one (If it ain't broke, don't fix it).
The inf file name can be obtained from the dropdown list in the Details tab.
Look for something like "INF name" (I have the Spanish version).
My inf is oem14.inf

Carlos




> > It seems that Dominic found that these are v8.64 and that the NVidia ones
> > (in the web) are v9.31
> > Looks like MS is behind schedule here.
> > Carlos
> >
> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> >
> >> I don't know how to determine the controller version associated with the
> >> update. How did you do that?
> >>
> >> This is the explanation of the update from my Update History:
> >>
> >> "NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
> >>
> >> Installation date: ‎5/‎22/‎2007 2:19 PM
> >>
> >> Installation status: Successful
> >>
> >> Update type: Optional
> >>
> >> NVIDIA Corporation Storage sofware update released in December, 2006
> >>
> >> More information:
> >> http://winqual.microsoft.com/support/?driverid=20028236
> >>
> >> Help and Support:
> >> http://support.microsoft.com/select/?target=hub"
> >>
> >> And this is the Device Manager details for the controller:
> >>
> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&SUBSYS_81621043&REV_F3
> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&SUBSYS_81621043
> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&CC_010185
> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&CC_0101
> >>
> >>
> >> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
> >> news:8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B-...
> >> > Colin:
> >> > As a side note I have become reluctant to install hardware driver
> >> > updates
> >> > from Microsoft.
> >> > This started when a couple of months ago MS posted a RAID driver for
> >> > NForce4
> >> > which made my system crash.
> >> > Unless I have no driver, i.e. I have an exclamation sign in Device
> >> > Manager,
> >> > I only use hardware drivers from the chipset manufacturer (NVidia, ATI,
> >> > etc.)
> >> > Latest update for NForce4 chipset was on Feb 5.
> >> > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce4...a64_15.00.html
> >> > and so far, no news on NVidia.
> >> > Can you post the SATA controller version you got from MS so that I can
> >> > compare it with the one included in the above package?
> >> > Carlos
> >> >
> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> As Felix reported a few days ago, there is an optional update on
> >> >> Microsoft
> >> >> Update that requires reactivation of Vista after the update is
> >> >> installed.
> >> >> I
> >> >> did two updates today and discovered that my activation status had
> >> >> changed
> >> >> from Activated to "Three days remaining....".
> >> >>
> >> >> The updates today were:
> >> >>
> >> >> NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
> >> >>
> >> >> KB936824 (the iPod update)
> >> >>
> >> >> Since the system drive figures very importantly in the hardware hash
> >> >> that
> >> >> is
> >> >> used to calculate when reactivation is required, my bet would be that
> >> >> the
> >> >> NVIDIA update would cause reactivation because it is a change
> >> >> involving
> >> >> the
> >> >> hard drive controller. (note: my update history shows this update was
> >> >> installed successfully twice and that does not make a lot of sense
> >> >> either.)
> >> >> But my assumption means nothing and maybe it was the iPod update.
> >> >> Hardware
> >> >> is involved there too.
> >> >>
> >> >> In any case, be aware that an optional update is on the server that
> >> >> will
> >> >> require you to use phone activation to reactivate Vista following
> >> >> installation of the update. Internet activation will not be accepted.
> >> >>
> >>
>

It is the info I reported just above (5.10.2600.0824). I think what you are
calling a Controller tab is the Driver Details button on the Driver tab on
my system. No matter.

The Inf Name is oem9.inf

"Carlos" <> wrote in message
news:FEBE5761-AFBA-491E-87DA-...
> Colin:
> I am now on my Vista PC.
> In Device Manager/IDE ATA/ATAPI controller/NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA
> Controller/Properites
> choose the "Controller" tab from there and not from the "Details" tab.
> I have version 5.10.2600.931 which corresponds to the NVidia supplied one.
> I'll keep that one (If it ain't broke, don't fix it).
> The inf file name can be obtained from the dropdown list in the Details
> tab.
> Look for something like "INF name" (I have the Spanish version).
> My inf is oem14.inf
>
> Carlos
>
>
>
>
>> > It seems that Dominic found that these are v8.64 and that the NVidia
>> > ones
>> > (in the web) are v9.31
>> > Looks like MS is behind schedule here.
>> > Carlos
>> >
>> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>> >
>> >> I don't know how to determine the controller version associated with
>> >> the
>> >> update. How did you do that?
>> >>
>> >> This is the explanation of the update from my Update History:
>> >>
>> >> "NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
>> >>
>> >> Installation date: ‎5/‎22/‎2007 2:19 PM
>> >>
>> >> Installation status: Successful
>> >>
>> >> Update type: Optional
>> >>
>> >> NVIDIA Corporation Storage sofware update released in December, 2006
>> >>
>> >> More information:
>> >> http://winqual.microsoft.com/support/?driverid=20028236
>> >>
>> >> Help and Support:
>> >> http://support.microsoft.com/select/?target=hub"
>> >>
>> >> And this is the Device Manager details for the controller:
>> >>
>> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&SUBSYS_81621043&REV_F3
>> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&SUBSYS_81621043
>> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&CC_010185
>> >> PCI\VEN_10DE&DEV_0054&CC_0101
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>> >> news:8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B-...
>> >> > Colin:
>> >> > As a side note I have become reluctant to install hardware driver
>> >> > updates
>> >> > from Microsoft.
>> >> > This started when a couple of months ago MS posted a RAID driver for
>> >> > NForce4
>> >> > which made my system crash.
>> >> > Unless I have no driver, i.e. I have an exclamation sign in Device
>> >> > Manager,
>> >> > I only use hardware drivers from the chipset manufacturer (NVidia,
>> >> > ATI,
>> >> > etc.)
>> >> > Latest update for NForce4 chipset was on Feb 5.
>> >> > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce4...a64_15.00.html
>> >> > and so far, no news on NVidia.
>> >> > Can you post the SATA controller version you got from MS so that I
>> >> > can
>> >> > compare it with the one included in the above package?
>> >> > Carlos
>> >> >
>> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> As Felix reported a few days ago, there is an optional update on
>> >> >> Microsoft
>> >> >> Update that requires reactivation of Vista after the update is
>> >> >> installed.
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> did two updates today and discovered that my activation status had
>> >> >> changed
>> >> >> from Activated to "Three days remaining....".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The updates today were:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
>> >> >>
>> >> >> KB936824 (the iPod update)
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Since the system drive figures very importantly in the hardware
>> >> >> hash
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> used to calculate when reactivation is required, my bet would be
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> NVIDIA update would cause reactivation because it is a change
>> >> >> involving
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> hard drive controller. (note: my update history shows this update
>> >> >> was
>> >> >> installed successfully twice and that does not make a lot of sense
>> >> >> either.)
>> >> >> But my assumption means nothing and maybe it was the iPod update.
>> >> >> Hardware
>> >> >> is involved there too.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> In any case, be aware that an optional update is on the server that
>> >> >> will
>> >> >> require you to use phone activation to reactivate Vista following
>> >> >> installation of the update. Internet activation will not be
>> >> >> accepted.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> Bingo. That's the one I installed yesterday on Vista x64.
>
> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
> news:BBBC94B6-DEEB-4503-B0AC-...
>> Thanks for the data, Dominic.
>> I have found a downloadable version of the nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
>> (the one in Windows Update) at:
>> http://test.catalog.update.microsoft...rial%20nforce4
>>
>> Three controllers are available.
>> 1st. and 3rd. are for Vista x64
>> 2nd. is for Vista x86
>> NVstor64.sys (and inf file) version is 5.10.2600.0824
>> Date is 12/23/2006
>> Carlos
>>
>> "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>>
>>> The version is is 8.24, not 8.64. The author is nVidia with a driver
>>> date of
>>> 23/12/2006 in Device Manager.
>>>
>>> The nvstor64.sys file in system32/drivers is 5.10.2600.0824 and shows
>>> a Date
>>> modified of 05/01/2007.
>>> The nvstor64.sys file in the v15 set is 5.10.2600.0931with a Date
>>> modified
>>> of 22/12/2006.
>>> Both files are attributed to nVidia.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>>> news:65121C40-52E9-43AE-A20D-...
>>> > Dominic:
>>> > So, assuming the 8.64's were developed by NVidia (remember the song
>>> "it > is
>>> > up to the hardware manufacturer to develop drivers...blah, blah, >
>>> blah"?),
>>> > it
>>> > means that MS is offering drivers that are older than the ones
>>> posted > by
>>> > NVidia at their web site.
>>> > I am not at a Vista machine right now but I can recall that in one
>>> of > the
>>> > tabs in Device Manager (right click on the SATA device, choose >
>>> properties)
>>> > it
>>> > is now possible to determine which is the inf file that installed the
>>> > driver.
>>> > If such is the case and my memory is right, it would be then
>>> possible > to
>>> > open that file and see additional details, e.g.: manufacturer, date,
>>> > version,
>>> > etc.
>>> > This way we could double check if the 8.64's belong to NVidia.
>>> > Carlos
>>> >
>>> > "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> The SATA IDE driver installed on my system by the Microsoft update is
>>> >> 8.64.
>>> >>
>>> >> The official nVidia version in the v15 driver package is 9.31 WHQL.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>>> >> news:8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B-...
>>> >> > Colin:
>>> >> > As a side note I have become reluctant to install hardware driver
>>> >> > updates
>>> >> > from Microsoft.
>>> >> > This started when a couple of months ago MS posted a RAID driver
>>> for
>>> >> > NForce4
>>> >> > which made my system crash.
>>> >> > Unless I have no driver, i.e. I have an exclamation sign in Device
>>> >> > Manager,
>>> >> > I only use hardware drivers from the chipset manufacturer
>>> (NVidia, >> > ATI,
>>> >> > etc.)
>>> >> > Latest update for NForce4 chipset was on Feb 5.
>>> >> > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce4...a64_15.00.html
>>> >> > and so far, no news on NVidia.
>>> >> > Can you post the SATA controller version you got from MS so that
>>> I >> > can
>>> >> > compare it with the one included in the above package?
>>> >> > Carlos
>>> >> >
>>> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> As Felix reported a few days ago, there is an optional update on
>>> >> >> Microsoft
>>> >> >> Update that requires reactivation of Vista after the update is
>>> >> >> installed.
>>> >> >> I
>>> >> >> did two updates today and discovered that my activation status had
>>> >> >> changed
>>> >> >> from Activated to "Three days remaining....".
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The updates today were:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA
>>> Controller
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> KB936824 (the iPod update)
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Since the system drive figures very importantly in the hardware
>>> >> >> hash
>>> >> >> that
>>> >> >> is
>>> >> >> used to calculate when reactivation is required, my bet would
>>> be >> >> that
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> NVIDIA update would cause reactivation because it is a change
>>> >> >> involving
>>> >> >> the
>>> >> >> hard drive controller. (note: my update history shows this
>>> update >> >> was
>>> >> >> installed successfully twice and that does not make a lot of sense
>>> >> >> either.)
>>> >> >> But my assumption means nothing and maybe it was the iPod update.
>>> >> >> Hardware
>>> >> >> is involved there too.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In any case, be aware that an optional update is on the server
>>> that
>>> >> >> will
>>> >> >> require you to use phone activation to reactivate Vista following
>>> >> >> installation of the update. Internet activation will not be >>
>>> >> accepted.
>>> >> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>

I was hit by the same problem. When I posted the problem, the MVPs
immediately blamed nvidia and ignored the fact that the activation
process can't differentiat between a hardware change and a software change.

Have fun talking to a drone in India. At least it will get you running
again.

- --
Iron Feliks

Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGVZt2IEgejQPpTu4RClzfAKCUFpgwziCSaji8UVLQG+ KzSMaggwCfRQGr
3RcCd2HPkGV6s8t6s/wr5xg=
=I1vP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

If you read my original post I said you had reported this and I am an MVP
and did not belittle your report. It is in fact an NVIDIA created problem.
The update is authored by them and supplied by them to MS for inclusion in
Microsoft Updates.

"Feliks Dzerzhinsky" <> wrote in message
news:...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> Bingo. That's the one I installed yesterday on Vista x64.
>>
>> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>> news:BBBC94B6-DEEB-4503-B0AC-...
>>> Thanks for the data, Dominic.
>>> I have found a downloadable version of the nForce4 Serial ATA Controller
>>> (the one in Windows Update) at:
>>> http://test.catalog.update.microsoft...rial%20nforce4
>>>
>>> Three controllers are available.
>>> 1st. and 3rd. are for Vista x64
>>> 2nd. is for Vista x86
>>> NVstor64.sys (and inf file) version is 5.10.2600.0824
>>> Date is 12/23/2006
>>> Carlos
>>>
>>> "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>>>
>>>> The version is is 8.24, not 8.64. The author is nVidia with a driver
>>>> date of
>>>> 23/12/2006 in Device Manager.
>>>>
>>>> The nvstor64.sys file in system32/drivers is 5.10.2600.0824 and shows
>>>> a Date
>>>> modified of 05/01/2007.
>>>> The nvstor64.sys file in the v15 set is 5.10.2600.0931with a Date
>>>> modified
>>>> of 22/12/2006.
>>>> Both files are attributed to nVidia.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:65121C40-52E9-43AE-A20D-...
>>>> > Dominic:
>>>> > So, assuming the 8.64's were developed by NVidia (remember the song
>>>> "it > is
>>>> > up to the hardware manufacturer to develop drivers...blah, blah, >
>>>> blah"?),
>>>> > it
>>>> > means that MS is offering drivers that are older than the ones
>>>> posted > by
>>>> > NVidia at their web site.
>>>> > I am not at a Vista machine right now but I can recall that in one
>>>> of > the
>>>> > tabs in Device Manager (right click on the SATA device, choose >
>>>> properties)
>>>> > it
>>>> > is now possible to determine which is the inf file that installed the
>>>> > driver.
>>>> > If such is the case and my memory is right, it would be then
>>>> possible > to
>>>> > open that file and see additional details, e.g.: manufacturer, date,
>>>> > version,
>>>> > etc.
>>>> > This way we could double check if the 8.64's belong to NVidia.
>>>> > Carlos
>>>> >
>>>> > "Dominic Payer" wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> The SATA IDE driver installed on my system by the Microsoft update
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> 8.64.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The official nVidia version in the v15 driver package is 9.31 WHQL.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "Carlos" <> wrote in message
>>>> >> news:8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B-...
>>>> >> > Colin:
>>>> >> > As a side note I have become reluctant to install hardware driver
>>>> >> > updates
>>>> >> > from Microsoft.
>>>> >> > This started when a couple of months ago MS posted a RAID driver
>>>> for
>>>> >> > NForce4
>>>> >> > which made my system crash.
>>>> >> > Unless I have no driver, i.e. I have an exclamation sign in Device
>>>> >> > Manager,
>>>> >> > I only use hardware drivers from the chipset manufacturer
>>>> (NVidia, >> > ATI,
>>>> >> > etc.)
>>>> >> > Latest update for NForce4 chipset was on Feb 5.
>>>> >> > http://www.nvidia.com/object/nforce4...a64_15.00.html
>>>> >> > and so far, no news on NVidia.
>>>> >> > Can you post the SATA controller version you got from MS so that
>>>> I >> > can
>>>> >> > compare it with the one included in the above package?
>>>> >> > Carlos
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > "Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> As Felix reported a few days ago, there is an optional update on
>>>> >> >> Microsoft
>>>> >> >> Update that requires reactivation of Vista after the update is
>>>> >> >> installed.
>>>> >> >> I
>>>> >> >> did two updates today and discovered that my activation status
>>>> >> >> had
>>>> >> >> changed
>>>> >> >> from Activated to "Three days remaining....".
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The updates today were:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> NVIDIA Corporation - Storage - NVIDIA nForce4 Serial ATA
>>>> Controller
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> KB936824 (the iPod update)
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Since the system drive figures very importantly in the hardware
>>>> >> >> hash
>>>> >> >> that
>>>> >> >> is
>>>> >> >> used to calculate when reactivation is required, my bet would
>>>> be >> >> that
>>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> NVIDIA update would cause reactivation because it is a change
>>>> >> >> involving
>>>> >> >> the
>>>> >> >> hard drive controller. (note: my update history shows this
>>>> update >> >> was
>>>> >> >> installed successfully twice and that does not make a lot of
>>>> >> >> sense
>>>> >> >> either.)
>>>> >> >> But my assumption means nothing and maybe it was the iPod update.
>>>> >> >> Hardware
>>>> >> >> is involved there too.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> In any case, be aware that an optional update is on the server
>>>> that
>>>> >> >> will
>>>> >> >> require you to use phone activation to reactivate Vista following
>>>> >> >> installation of the update. Internet activation will not be >>
>>>> >> accepted.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>
>
> I was hit by the same problem. When I posted the problem, the MVPs
> immediately blamed nvidia and ignored the fact that the activation
> process can't differentiat between a hardware change and a software
> change.
>
> Have fun talking to a drone in India. At least it will get you running
> again.
>
> - --
> Iron Feliks
>
> Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGVZt2IEgejQPpTu4RClzfAKCUFpgwziCSaji8UVLQG+ KzSMaggwCfRQGr
> 3RcCd2HPkGV6s8t6s/wr5xg=
> =I1vP
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> If you read my original post I said you had reported this and I am an
> MVP and did not belittle your report. It is in fact an NVIDIA created
> problem. The update is authored by them and supplied by them to MS for
> inclusion in Microsoft Updates.
>

You got a better MVP than I did.

So, no hardware is changed, but The activation module thinks there was.
And this is nvidia's fault because?

By the way, did MS pull those drivers from Windows Updates. If they are
flawed, they should be removed.

The re-activation requirement is supposed to be hardware related, not
software related, so MS is still passing the buck.
- --
Iron Feliks

Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGVayRIEgejQPpTu4RCs6uAKClqeuO+lnaQ+1l5jxo/8EA5oBy2QCgg86q
g3PqU//qFMiOomPWrFbaJNU=
=MslY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I don't know why NVIDIA released the upgrade with it doing whatever it is
doing to other things in the system. Obviously someone missed something
along the way. By now, one hopes, that PSS has gotten enough calls from the
activation center to do something.

"Feliks Dzerzhinsky" <> wrote in message
news:...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>> If you read my original post I said you had reported this and I am an
>> MVP and did not belittle your report. It is in fact an NVIDIA created
>> problem. The update is authored by them and supplied by them to MS for
>> inclusion in Microsoft Updates.
>>
>
> You got a better MVP than I did.
>
> So, no hardware is changed, but The activation module thinks there was.
> And this is nvidia's fault because?
>
> By the way, did MS pull those drivers from Windows Updates. If they are
> flawed, they should be removed.
>
> The re-activation requirement is supposed to be hardware related, not
> software related, so MS is still passing the buck.
> - --
> Iron Feliks
>
> Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iD8DBQFGVayRIEgejQPpTu4RCs6uAKClqeuO+lnaQ+1l5jxo/8EA5oBy2QCgg86q
> g3PqU//qFMiOomPWrFbaJNU=
> =MslY
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> I don't know why NVIDIA released the upgrade with it doing whatever it
> is doing to other things in the system. Obviously someone missed
> something along the way. By now, one hopes, that PSS has gotten enough
> calls from the activation center to do something.
>
I still haven't seen a logical reason that changing drivers convinced
Vist there had been a change of hardware. Clearly, there are ways to
identify drives that is not dependent on the dirvers. therefore, I
still believe this to be a Vista problem rather than an nvidia one.

The argument that it doesn't happen with other drivers is deficient. I
might change my opinion if someone from MS could provide an explanation
of why this happened, but so far, no one has. Until that happens, my
view is that it is a Vista problem.
- --
Iron Feliks

Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGVfhyIEgejQPpTu4RCnsWAKCWH07OKfvUOzviiRqH68 gaVk5vywCfV48p
aKNi12bjJT0VTiUQgnjJxbs=
=X/21
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hello Feliks,
Let's look at it like this. How does Windows talk to hardware and thus
identify hardware? That happens through the drivers for the hardware.
I am speaking generically, not to this specific issue since I don't have
any updates for this issue. If the driver is not present, Windows has
little to no information about teh device, so if you add a driver it
reports back information to the OS on the hardware. If the driver changes
what it reports back to Windows, it can appear as different hardware, if it
appears as different hardware, then Windows thinks that hardware is changed.
see this for an example
Why is activation not available in Safe Mode? Because most of the drivers
in Safe Mode are not loaded, so if you activate in Safe Mode without the
drivers, when you boot normally, the drivers would load and Windows would
now see all the devices that were not present before. This could trigger
activation due to the appearence of hardware changes.

Drivers can change the way hardware is represented to Windows, so hardware
appears differnet even though it may not be.

Thanks,
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
--------------------
|>Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 13:41:22 -0700
|>From: Feliks Dzerzhinsky <>
|>User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326)
|>MIME-Version: 1.0
|>Subject: Re: Vista reactivation required after Microsoft Update optional
up
|>References: <4D872CAC-30B2-4AB6-B67A->
<8762D39C-EFE2-474B-8D2B->
<EDA3B14E-CE19-4DD1-BB3F->
<65121C40-52E9-43AE-A20D->
<4F7EAA6A-5B83-4B9C-82D6->
<BBBC94B6-DEEB-4503-B0AC->
<5241E07A-F4B0-458F-A63A->
<>
<A05BF2CF-9338-44BE-8867->
<>
<860B4C34-D034-4ECE-A57A->
|>In-Reply-To: <860B4C34-D034-4ECE-A57A->
|>X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0
|>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
|>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
|>X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000743-4, 05/24/2007), Outbound message
|>X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
|>Message-ID: <e#>
|>Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
|>NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-67-126-141-121.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net
67.126.141.121
|>Lines: 1
|>Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl!TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl!TK2MSF TNGP03.phx.gbl
|>Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general:6862
|>X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general
|>
|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
|>Hash: SHA512
|>
|>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
|>> I don't know why NVIDIA released the upgrade with it doing whatever it
|>> is doing to other things in the system. Obviously someone missed
|>> something along the way. By now, one hopes, that PSS has gotten enough
|>> calls from the activation center to do something.
|>>
|>I still haven't seen a logical reason that changing drivers convinced
|>Vist there had been a change of hardware. Clearly, there are ways to
|>identify drives that is not dependent on the dirvers. therefore, I
|>still believe this to be a Vista problem rather than an nvidia one.
|>
|>The argument that it doesn't happen with other drivers is deficient. I
|>might change my opinion if someone from MS could provide an explanation
|>of why this happened, but so far, no one has. Until that happens, my
|>view is that it is a Vista problem.
|>- --
|>Iron Feliks
|>
|>Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
|>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
|>Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
|>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
|>
|>iD8DBQFGVfhyIEgejQPpTu4RCnsWAKCWH07OKfvUOzviiRqH 68gaVk5vywCfV48p
|>aKNi12bjJT0VTiUQgnjJxbs=
|>=X/21
|>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Darrell Gorter[MSFT] wrote:
> Hello Feliks,
> Let's look at it like this. How does Windows talk to hardware and thus
> identify hardware? That happens through the drivers for the hardware.
> I am speaking generically, not to this specific issue since I don't have
> any updates for this issue. If the driver is not present, Windows has
> little to no information about teh device, so if you add a driver it
> reports back information to the OS on the hardware. If the driver changes
> what it reports back to Windows, it can appear as different hardware, if it
> appears as different hardware, then Windows thinks that hardware is changed.
> see this for an example
> Why is activation not available in Safe Mode? Because most of the drivers
> in Safe Mode are not loaded, so if you activate in Safe Mode without the
> drivers, when you boot normally, the drivers would load and Windows would
> now see all the devices that were not present before. This could trigger
> activation due to the appearence of hardware changes.
>
> Drivers can change the way hardware is represented to Windows, so hardware
> appears differnet even though it may not be.
>
> Thanks,
> Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
> --------------------

While I appreciate your answer, I have to tell you the activation system
is a bit paranoid. Or, perhaps more accurately, it is an equation with
far too many variables.

It reminds me a bit of the old (1980s) protection scheme MS use with
its applications that relied on a hidden file. The problem was that if
the drive suffered a soft read error, it produced a statement on the
user's screen that contained the lines, "The tree of evil bears bitter
fruit", and , "Now trashing your hard drive". At least you don't use
similar verbiage today. You only threaten people with crippling their
computer if they don't jump through hoops.

I've saved the best questions for last. The first is, if MS is aware
that changes in software (drivers) can change the way hardware is
reported to Windows, why not use a hardware detection schem that is less
easily fooled? The second is why are third party drivers available via
Windows Update, that have not been tested and determined not to cause
such problems?

- --
Iron Feliks

Trolls are like babies. After feeding, they get stinky.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGVm1CIEgejQPpTu4RCsDkAJ9ejEthwUDPJNw2MnTfpm FMi7jRwgCfQIXy
7g0Kv5vtiFTZV0OuAjZ6Umc=
=+DgZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----