I guess we're opposites. I always start with the release candidates.

I NEVER upgrade a Microsoft OS or Office. NEVER! The kind of nonsense you talk about here and the difficulties with upgrading that sometimes occur are not something I want to ask for. I keep each system with the OS and Office version that comes on it. When I buy a new system, I get the current OS. Apples on the other hand, I pretty routinely upgrade to the latest OSX version. So I basically wont play the game with Microsoft because of how they play it. It isnt much but they dont get anything from me for new software except when I buy new hardware.

Alternatives to MS include Mac (OS/X) and Linux.
You can always vote with choice of OS.

I can understand not upgrading Windows... but Office? :confused:

The programs that I require are not available for either Linux or the Mac OS. I have no choice but to run Windows.

First, it isnt like they are typically major changes. Second, why ask for a problem for a minimal change. Also to pay for said change/problems.

The kind where, despite whatever misgivings they have, the customers keep sucking at that business's teat.

I don't know. Maybe you *are* a special case. Maybe you're part of that small group of computer users that truly can't use WINE or run alternatives to the programs that you're using, and aren't a large enough client to convince the developer to code it for a different OS. I guess all I can say is, "damn, that sucks; sorry I can't do a thing for you".

But I would venture to say there's a good number of people who run the same software you do who have the same frustrations. It may be that the time is now to band together and give the developers a piece of your (collective) mind. With software that specialized, I would think you wouldn't have to bring that big a group together to motivate the developer.

Of course, the whole lot of you might not have the time, money, or effort to spare. In which case, things will stay as they are. Oh well, it's not like things can get much worse...right?

Out of curiosity, when you turned the machine back on after installing the new nic, did you install the new NIC drivers BEFORE attempting to activate it?

I have a sneaking feeling that you turned it on and tried the activation before the new nic was correctly installed. It is (to me) the only way to describe the faliure of the activation wizard. If the machine can't contact the internet then it makes sense that the activation will fail.

This is exactly what I thought as well. The activation wizard craps out if there is no internet connection.

Counselor, if you do this I will gladly donate a small handful of $20s toward your expenses. The OS is as ubiquitous as crooks in congress and you can't get away from it! Can you imagine certifying the universe of Windows users as a class?? Hell, can you imagine certifying everyone who has flown out ot a US airport since the TSA's formation as a class in a suit against that workfare program?

Changing a NIC triggers reactivation? That's absurd. I also agree with giving a phony name and phone number. Does the EULA require that you provide Microsoft accurate personal information?

--PP

We use software in my line of businessthat pings the system information for the serial number of the hard drive. If you have a hard drive crash and replace your hard drive you have to call in and get an acivation code.

Others have a HASP key (USB dongle) that I don't think there's a cloning or emulation hack out for yet.

--PP

NEVER EVER install or upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until at least SP1. Windows NT 4 was useless until SP3. XP pro calmed down after SP2. It's not really their fault, they can beta test for years and still not encounter the situations that end users of a massive worldwide deployment will run up against. I have hundreds of Windows machines that I am responsible for in my compay and none of them will be "upgrading" to Vista unless there is a relaly good reason to and then not until at least SP1.

--PP

Changing the NIC means the system has undergone a hardware change, and the OP said he had done some stuff to hard drives as well, so the system determined enough had changed that it wanted to be reactivated. No big deal IMHO and most certainly not "absurd".

As for the EULA, it doesn't say the information has to be accurate, I think it has to be made clear that the request for information had NOTHING to do with the activation process.

Activating XP is an anonymous process and no information is required. The request for a name and number were made by the support department, to me it seems only reasonable that someone providing support over the phone knows a) who they are dealing with and b) who to call back if a call drops.

Providing this information to open a support case is the most normal thing in the world, but since it is Microsoft asking it I guess it is seen as the most terrible intrusion into someones private life and worthy of lawsuits.

I don't think any company will give tech support over the phone without at least knowing who they are dealing with. You can call yourself any name you want, but at least don't make those poor call center rep's life even more miserable by playing legal eagle on the phone with them, they are only there to help them. By not helping them with a simple request you invalidate IMHO the right to complain how long the call takes.

When I've had a problem with the Activation Wizard, I've had to call the phone number that popped up on the screen and then punch in the code manually. I was never asked for personal info. Sounds like the OP just took the wrong route to get their problem solved. Going through the suport queue means that you're going to get treated like anyone else opening a support ticket, which means them asking for your name, phone # etc.

Exactly. I've spoken with the manual activation people 100's of times, and not once did they want to know who I am. Like I said, the request for personal information came from the support department.